Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I found this, rather long but an interesting read none the less and some interesting quotes at the end. Like to know some of your thoughts, I was always under the impression that he did exist but made larger than life.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Probably.

Though it could easily have been more than one person. None of whom were named Jesus srug

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I found this, rather long but an interesting read none the less and some interesting quotes at the end. Like to know some of your thoughts, I was always under the impression that he did exist but made larger than life.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I read both JIA's link then Pitt's. It was the eaxct same things except JIA's was like "Woo...look at these!" And then Pitt's was all like "Nuh-uh! Here's why every one of those does only two things toward proving the historical Jesus: jack and sh*t."

The similarities to prior deities (the link lists a couple in detail, but barely scratches the surface) and the utter lack of anything convincing about Jesus as seperate from them and justified, was what led me away from Christianity in the first place. There isn't justification...I know because I looked fragging everywhere before I gave up and conceeded, because I needed to be sure.

Anyway, Pitt's link is a good (if bitter) synopsis of the evidence (or lack thereof) and other strikes against the factual-ness of the historical Jesus.

The dude probably existed. But he's probably rolling over in his tomb seeing all the nonsense surrounding him.

But I thought of something, if I wasn't me, I'd want to be Jesus' biological father. I'd be God.

31

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I read both JIA's link then Pitt's. It was the eaxct same things except JIA's was like "Woo...look at these!" And then Pitt's was all like "Nuh-uh! Here's why every one of those does only two things toward proving the historical Jesus: jack and sh*t."

The similarities to prior deities (the link lists a couple in detail, but barely scratches the surface) and the utter lack of anything convincing about Jesus as seperate from them and justified, was what led me away from Christianity in the first place. There isn't justification...I know because I looked fragging everywhere before I gave up and conceeded, because I needed to be sure.

Anyway, Pitt's link is a good (if bitter) synopsis of the evidence (or lack thereof) and other strikes against the factual-ness of the historical Jesus.

The dude probably existed. But he's probably rolling over in his tomb seeing all the nonsense surrounding him.

But I thought of something, if I wasn't me, I'd want to be Jesus' biological father. I'd be God.

31 But did you read this section "QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:"? They are all smart people that disagree so it must be right, why because they are smart people.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
But did you read this section "QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:"? They are all smart people that disagree so it must be right, why because they are smart people.

...yeah, not the greatest logic. I just skimmed that section. I didn't say the link was perfect....just good. I read the historical analyses carefully, then browed the links to other myths and quotes, mainly because I'm already familiar with the shared myths and the quotes bored me.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...yeah, not the greatest logic. I just skimmed that section. I didn't say the link was perfect....just good. I read the historical analyses carefully, then browed the links to other myths and quotes, mainly because I'm already familiar with the shared myths and the quotes bored me. I was joking around, I just thought the link was an interesting read. Mostly I was making fun or JIA in my last post, he likes to do that trick a lot.

I don't think there's much evidence any way.

Of course he existed, how was the Bible written? Too bad the bible is just a book worshipped by the blinkered.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Of course he existed, how was the Bible written? Too bad the bible is just a book worshipped by the blinkered.

There is actually some good stuff in the Bible, you just have to dig it up.

do you play the tuba

If Jesus did live we would know nothing of him historicaly.In my opinion it's not a matter of,"Did Jesus exsist?" it's more a question of did a person exsist which the story of Jesus was based on.I think if a person who the Bible's accounts were based on lived,he was a rebel who caused a lot of trouble in his time,and was later glorified.

But that's what I belive based upon my own research into the subject.I suggest everyone does their own research and come to their own conclusions.When I say research,I don't mean read one biased book on why Jesus did or didn't exsist.Read several books that show both sides of the story.Look at old history,the writings of Origen is a great place to start.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
If Jesus did live we would know nothing of him historicaly.In my opinion it's not a matter of,"Did Jesus exsist?" it's more a question of did a person exsist which the story of Jesus was based on.I think if a person who the Bible's accounts were based on lived,he was a rebel who caused a lot of trouble in his time,and was later glorified.

But that's what I belive based upon my own research into the subject.I suggest everyone does their own research and come to their own conclusions.When I say research,I don't mean read one biased book on why Jesus did or didn't exsist.Read several books that show both sides of the story.Look at old history,the writings of Origen is a great place to start.

Jesus was a revolutionary.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
If Jesus did live we would know nothing of him historicaly.In my opinion it's not a matter of,"Did Jesus exsist?" it's more a question of did a person exsist which the story of Jesus was based on.I think if a person who the Bible's accounts were based on lived,he was a rebel who caused a lot of trouble in his time,and was later glorified.

But that's what I belive based upon my own research into the subject.I suggest everyone does their own research and come to their own conclusions.When I say research,I don't mean read one biased book on why Jesus did or didn't exsist.Read several books that show both sides of the story.Look at old history,the writings of Origen is a great place to start.

Amongst historians there is little to no debate that Jesus existed. Its an accepted fact. Whether he did what the Bible says i.e. heal lepers is of course under debate.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Amongst historians there is little to no debate that Jesus existed. Its an accepted fact. Whether he did what the Bible says i.e. heal lepers is of course under debate.

Seemed different to me. You got any sources one could read up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Bibliography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown#Works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.P._Sanders#Books_and_articles

Those are all the fundamentals, you could try Augustine of Hippo aswell if you wanted and a very nice little book titled "Teach yourself: Christianity" Can't remember who wrote it but its a nice book.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Bibliography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown#Works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.P._Sanders#Books_and_articles

Those are all the fundamentals, you could try Augustine of Hippo aswell if you wanted and a very nice little book titled "Teach yourself: Christianity" Can't remember who wrote it but its a nice book.

All of those works? Do you maybe have a more accessible way for the layman?

I suppose that was a bit of a cop-out.

Well, here is E. P. Sanders Book.

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I suppose that was a bit of a cop-out.

Well, here is E. P. Sanders Book.

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994

Well, you have now pegged Bardock42 correctly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you have now pegged Bardock42 correctly. Don't follow.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't follow.

I was razzing you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't follow.

Cyber-molesting Sanctuary sure is rotting your grey matter.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Cyber-molesting Sanctuary sure is rotting your grey matter.

I will drop the cyber part in 14 days.

We know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world.

Secular Authorities on Jesus' Historicity:

(By secular I mean "pagan" - non-Christian, non-Jewish, and generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.)

1) Cornelius Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for this moral "integrity and essential goodness." Tacitus's most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while Histories begin after Nero's death and proceeded to that of Domitian in A.D. 96.

Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. His misspelling of Christ (Christus) was a common error made by pagan writers. Says Tacitus:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome." (Annals XV, 44)

A possible allusion to Jesus' resurrection is in this account. It is distinctly possible, that, when Tacitus adds that "A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out," he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from the dead.

Another interesting sidelight about this passage from Tacitus: Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has come down to us.... And it may be regarded as an instance of the irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan writer mentions him because of the sentence fo death which he passed upon Christ. For a moment Tacitus joins hands with the ancient Christian creed: "...suffered under Pontius Pilate."

Note that Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day, "independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judaea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36). That may not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazereth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty."

2) Lucian of Samosata

3) Suetonius

4) Pliny the Younger

5) Thallus

6) Phlegon

7) Mara Bar-Serapion

Jewish References to Jesus' historicity:

1) The Babylonian Tulmud

Christian Sources for Jesus' Historicity (Post-Apostolic Writers):

1) Clement of Rome

2) Ignatiius

3) Quadratus

4) The Epistle of Barnabas

5) Aristides

6) Justin Martyr

7) Hegesippus

Additional Sources for Christianity:

1) Trajan

2) Macrobius

3) Hadrian

4) Antoninus Pius

5) Marcus Aurelius

6) Juvenal

7) Seneca

8) Hierocles

No, he was not a historical character.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Did a historical Jesus exist?

No. </end thread>

For as many sources you can bring up supporting christ,you can bring up just as many that is against a historic Jesus.Early Christianity was so diverse it's hard to pin point anything 100% conclusive.Celsus even refered to many aspects as Christ life as pale imitations of older prophets from the past.That's why I brought up the conclusion that Christ himself was an little known revolutionary who later was given mythical motifs from several traditions and became the figure head of Christianity.Even fair and balanced examinations of early Christianity can not say for sure a lot about Christ, a historic Christ.These ideas I have brought up are nothing new and have been looked at very many times.

Originally posted by ushomefree
We know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world.

Secular Authorities on Jesus' Historicity:

(By secular I mean "pagan" - non-Christian, non-Jewish, and generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.)

1) Cornelius Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for this moral "integrity and essential goodness." Tacitus's most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while Histories begin after Nero's death and proceeded to that of Domitian in A.D. 96.

Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. His misspelling of Christ (Christus) was a common error made by pagan writers. Says Tacitus:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome." (Annals XV, 44)

A possible allusion to Jesus' resurrection is in this account. It is distinctly possible, that, when Tacitus adds that "A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out," he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from the dead.

Another interesting sidelight about this passage from Tacitus: Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has come down to us.... And it may be regarded as an instance of the irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan writer mentions him because of the sentence fo death which he passed upon Christ. For a moment Tacitus joins hands with the ancient Christian creed: "...suffered under Pontius Pilate."

Note that Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day, "independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judaea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36). That may not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazereth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty."

2) Lucian of Samosata

3) Suetonius

4) Pliny the Younger

5) Thallus

6) Phlegon

7) Mara Bar-Serapion

Jewish References to Jesus' historicity:

1) The Babylonian Tulmud

Christian Sources for Jesus' Historicity (Post-Apostolic Writers):

1) Clement of Rome

2) Ignatiius

3) Quadratus

4) The Epistle of Barnabas

5) Aristides

6) Justin Martyr

7) Hegesippus

Additional Sources for Christianity:

1) Trajan

2) Macrobius

3) Hadrian

4) Antoninus Pius

5) Marcus Aurelius

6) Juvenal

7) Seneca

8) Hierocles pitt_stfu with the bold large text.

Shakyamunison-

That is the whole point; its ridiculous, and yet, people believed!

The resurrection of Jesus is the most fantastic event Christianity has ever asked the world to take seriously. If it isn't true, all of the claims of Jesus are irrelevant. If it is true, it substantiates all of Jesus' claims, and no other event in history has more significance.

Read the accounts of the resurrection; skeptics were everywhere. Jesus' disciples--especialy Thomas--didn't expect to see him. Jesus' enemies didn't want to see him, and offered alternate--though easily refuted--explanations for the empty tomb.

Let's look at two of those explanations:

1) Jesus' resurrection was just wishful thinking on part of his disciples. They developed this myth to substantiate their claims.

Some modern critics speculate that the resurrection appearances were the disciples' hallucinations, which occured because they worked themselves into a hysteria hoping that Jesus would come back from the dead. But that explanation doesn't take into account the disciples' overall misunderstanding of Jesus' resurrection predictions (John 16:17-18).

After Jesus' death, the disciples didn't sit in anticipation of the resurrection. When Jesus appeared to most of them, they were hiding out in fear of the authorities (verses 19-20), not boldly proclaiming that their leader would return from the dead. Basically, the disciples didn't "get it" until after the fact. So lack of belief--not hysteria fantasizing--emerges as thier state of mind before the resurrection.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the disciples hallucinated. To refute this claim, their critics would only have to go to the tomb and show everyone the body. The tomb, however, was empty. (Note: All of the world's religions have places of honor commemorating their dead founders. Only Christianity has an empty tomb.) Given the uncontested fact of a bodiless grave, another explanation surfaced.

2) Jesus' resurrection was an elaborate hoax. While the gaurds slept, the disciples came and stole the body, then told everyone that their leader was alive. (Matthew 28:11-15.)

Many problems arise with this theory. For starters, the Jewish leaders of the day had taken great pains to ensure that the tomb could not be robbed (Matthew 27:62-66). Pilate himself placed these guards on special duty. And even if they had dozed off, how could the guards have known who robbed the tomb? They were supposedly sleeping!

This argument ignores the disciples' fear of being caught and prosecuted by the Jewish leaders of the day. Verse 19 shows them all locked in a room together, hidden away in fear. These men weren't about to leave the building, let alone go up against armed guards to steal a body.

And what else but Jesus' resurrection could have transformed these disciples from timid cowards to bold advocates, preaching that Jesus was alive in the very city in which his murderers still had power? (Acts 2:22-47.) Eventually, almost all of these men died martyrs' deaths. If this had been a hoax, they would have admitted to that fact when faced with the prospect of dying for it.

Some skeptical people may not fully appreciate the importance of trusting scripture. Some may "pick and choose" only appealing parts of the Bible-or, worse, not truly accept the claims of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jesus gives us a vivid warning against rejecting the words of Moses and the prophets when He indicates that people not listening to them would not be convinced of the horror of hell even if someone "rises from the dead" (Luke 16:27-31).

Jesus also emphasized the accuracy of scripture down to the smallest detail (Matthew 5:18).

A Dead Sea scroll released in 1991 spoke of a Messiah who "suffered crucifixion for the sins of men." Also included were referrences to Isaiah 53, (written 740-680 B.C.) tying this Messiah to the suffering servant Isaiah foretold centuries before. Ironically, some Jewish sects have actually removed Isaiah 53 from scripture-its reference is "too" descriptive of Jesus. This find, however, indicates the people of Jesus' day were well aware of, and accepted, the parallel.

"Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:1-12 NIV)

There are over 100 prophecies in the Bible regarding the coming Messiah; their are seven times more prophecies concerning His second coming!

The resurrection described in the Bible came with a large earthquake..LARGE! Why isn't this mentioned by anyone? Graves opened up. I'm sure it would of made the news. Of course Jesus as a man probably existed but was twisted by the authorities. Christians followed the teachings of Christos. Simple. Nothing said that was supernatural though.

The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

That is the whole point; its ridiculous, and yet, people believed!

The resurrection of Jesus is the most fantastic event Christianity has ever asked the world to take seriously. If it isn't true, all of the claims of Jesus are irrelevant. If it is true, it substantiates all of Jesus' claims, and no other event in history has more significance.

Read the accounts of the resurrection; skeptics were everywhere. Jesus' disciples--especialy Thomas--didn't expect to see him. Jesus' enemies didn't want to see him, and offered alternate--though easily refuted--explanations for the empty tomb.

Let's look at two of those explanations:

1) Jesus' resurrection was just wishful thinking on part of his disciples. They developed this myth to substantiate their claims.

Some modern critics speculate that the resurrection appearances were the disciples' hallucinations, which occured because they worked themselves into a hysteria hoping that Jesus would come back from the dead. But that explanation doesn't take into account the disciples' overall misunderstanding of Jesus' resurrection predictions (John 16:17-18).

After Jesus' death, the disciples didn't sit in anticipation of the resurrection. When Jesus appeared to most of them, they were hiding out in fear of the authorities (verses 19-20), not boldly proclaiming that their leader would return from the dead. Basically, the disciples didn't "get it" until after the fact. So lack of belief--not hysteria fantasizing--emerges as thier state of mind before the resurrection.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the disciples hallucinated. To refute this claim, their critics would only have to go to the tomb and show everyone the body. The tomb, however, was empty. (Note: All of the world's religions have places of honor commemorating their dead founders. Only Christianity has an empty tomb.) Given the uncontested fact of a bodiless grave, another explanation surfaced.

2) Jesus' resurrection was an elaborate hoax. While the gaurds slept, the disciples came and stole the body, then told everyone that their leader was alive. (Matthew 28:11-15.)

Many problems arise with this theory. For starters, the Jewish leaders of the day had taken great pains to ensure that the tomb could not be robbed (Matthew 27:62-66). Pilate himself placed these guards on special duty. And even if they had dozed off, how could the guards have known who robbed the tomb? They were supposedly sleeping!

This argument ignores the disciples' fear of being caught and prosecuted by the Jewish leaders of the day. Verse 19 shows them all locked in a room together, hidden away in fear. These men weren't about to leave the building, let alone go up against armed guards to steal a body.

And what else but Jesus' resurrection could have transformed these disciples from timid cowards to bold advocates, preaching that Jesus was alive in the very city in which his murderers still had power? (Acts 2:22-47.) Eventually, almost all of these men died martyrs' deaths. If this had been a hoax, they would have admitted to that fact when faced with the prospect of dying for it.

Some skeptical people may not fully appreciate the importance of trusting scripture. Some may "pick and choose" only appealing parts of the Bible-or, worse, not truly accept the claims of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jesus gives us a vivid warning against rejecting the words of Moses and the prophets when He indicates that people not listening to them would not be convinced of the horror of hell even if someone "rises from the dead" (Luke 16:27-31).

Jesus also emphasized the accuracy of scripture down to the smallest detail (Matthew 5:18).

A Dead Sea scroll released in 1991 spoke of a Messiah who "suffered crucifixion for the sins of men." Also included were referrences to Isaiah 53, (written 740-680 B.C.) tying this Messiah to the suffering servant Isaiah foretold centuries before. Ironically, some Jewish sects have actually removed Isaiah 53 from scripture-its reference is "too" descriptive of Jesus. This find, however, indicates the people of Jesus' day were well aware of, and accepted, the parallel.

"Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:1-12 NIV)

There are over 100 prophecies in the Bible regarding the coming Messiah; their are seven times more prophecies concerning His second coming!

Delusion can spread like wild fire.

debbiejo-

For crying out loud, assuming that you are right--no one mentioning a large earthquake--then how have you come to the conclusion that such an event did occur in the first place, if no one mentioned it?! And further more, what does an earthquake have to do with belief in the risen Jesus?

As for the Gospel accounts being manipulated by church authorities, their is literally no evidence to support such claims. All we have are early Christian creeds being circulated while "eyewitnesses" were still alive, and people dying in belief of the risen Jesus. It's that simple, debbiejo! Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Absolutely nothing has changed. What in the world are you talking about?! If what you say is true, what did the "original" Gospels state?! Incredible.

You have been a member of this forum for years; we have had disagreements in the past, but at this point, I can't even begin you take your seriously anymore. You either lack knowledge, have extreme bias views, or both. debbiejo, you are better than this... c'mon.

Originally posted by ushomefree
debbiejo-

For crying out loud, assuming that you are right--no one mentioning a large earthquake--then how have you come to the conclusion that such an event did occur in the first place, if no one mentioned it?! And further more, what does an earthquake have to do with belief in the risen Jesus?

As for the Gospel accounts being manipulated by church authorities, their is literally no evidence to support such claims. All we have are early Christian creeds being circulated while "eyewitnesses" were still alive, and people dying in belief of the risen Jesus. It's that simple, debbiejo! Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Absolutely nothing has changed. What in the world are you talking about?! If what you say is true, what did the "original" Gospels state?! Incredible.

You have been a member of this forum for years; we have had disagreements in the past, but at this point, I can't even begin you take your seriously anymore. You either lack knowledge, have extreme bias views, or both. debbiejo, you are better than this... c'mon. Knock off with the large text will ya

Originally posted by ushomefree
debbiejo-

For crying out loud, assuming that you are right--no one mentioning a large earthquake--then how have you come to the conclusion that such an event did occur in the first place, if no one mentioned it?! And further more, what does an earthquake have to do with belief in the risen Jesus?

As for the Gospel accounts being manipulated by church authorities, their is literally no evidence to support such claims. All we have are early Christian creeds being circulated while "eyewitnesses" were still alive, and people dying in belief of the risen Jesus. It's that simple, debbiejo! Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Absolutely nothing has changed. What in the world are you talking about?! If what you say is true, what did the "original" Gospels state?! Incredible.

You have been a member of this forum for years; we have had disagreements in the past, but at this point, I can't even begin you take your seriously anymore. You either lack knowledge, have extreme bias views, or both. debbiejo, you are better than this... c'mon. I have just moved. If my reference books weren't in boxes still, I could give more of an interesting answer regarding the votes on Jesus's divinity. It was quite divided, and if I recall right there were even some mysterious deaths would lead some to believe that it was cohurst correct voting.

debbiejo-

The first Council of Nicaea was held 300+ years after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ--the birth of Christianity. As to events that unfolded during the Council vote are irrelevant, having absolutely nothing to do with early Christian beliefs, namely that Jesus was divine (vindicated by the resurrection).

The earliest Christian creed can be found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8, which was written and circulated while eyewitnesses were still alive and available for testimony.

It reads: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me."

This is fantastic, not to mention unique!

For instance, unlike early Muslims who believed Muhammad was addressed by angelic beings to "recite," early Christians had eyewitness testimony, including themselves! Early Muslims had no eyewitnesses; what Muhammad experience was "personal." He was alone in a cave. No eyewitnesses.

The early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead, to include hundreds of others. That is what established Jesus' divinity, not the Council of Nicaea.

You may share the beliefs of some that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but you must concur--you must concur!--at minimum, something major occurred to birth the Christian church! All were willing to die over a belief--so absurd--as to a man rising from the dead.

"...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all." (1 Corinthians 15: 17,19 NAB)

ushomefree, I hope the change to small text is permanent. Don't post in such big font in future.

Anyway. Whilst it is true that historians like Tactitus are not contempories of Jesus, we tend to value their contributions to plenty of other areas which are equally not recorded by contemporary scholars yet which we take as our best guide to that history. His mention of Jesus is no less than any of that. Historians in that period tended to be respected people who were not expected to justify their work with sources to everyone reading it. Nonetheless within their own scholarly fraternity there were certain standards. Tacitus is a trusted historical source and we cannot just ignore that in this single instance and keep all the rest. Furthermore, there is no motivation for Tactitus to make any of it up or to incllude it without good reason, as the mention is sucvh a sideline of a larger subject. There was nothing in it for him to do so.

A better doubt to Tactitus word is that he might simply have been echoing the word of someone else who was mistaken. But this only brings us back to the same problem- basically, this could apply to just about everything we know about ancient history.

The best sources we have for understanding ancient times are these very historians and Jesus is mentioned by them. No, it's not proof, but none of this ancient history is proof. But the best guidelines we have says such a man did exist. Of course, that's all they say. Of his works and deeds we know nothing.

I think people are missing a very important point

Do you know how many "messiahs" are out there today? Not just the crazies on street corners, but those pseudo-intellectuals who speak as if they have a connection to deeper knowledge? You know, they are on Oprah and Montel all the time.

Well, guess what, they were ALWAYS around. I bet if you go back to the year 0, you can find hundreds if not thousands of people who considered themselves to be the Jewish Messiah.

I think the argument that "oh, there was probably someone" is just a cop out, seeing as there were probably hundreds. To say with any conclusiveness that any one of them was the true messiah is ridiculous.

I'M BACK. IT IS TIME.

Bump.

Plan on posting some stuff on this topic. It is fascinating, indeed.

Particularly fascinating is that there are at least several "dying and rising" gods that predate Jesus in the general location. So clearly it's not a coincidence that such a character that influenced a huge religion originated in this area instead of say, Japan or China...

biUOyWezC7I

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Bump.

Plan on posting some stuff on this topic. It is fascinating, indeed.

Particularly fascinating is that there are at least several "dying and rising" gods that predate Jesus in the general location. So clearly it's not a coincidence that such a character that influenced a huge religion originated in this area instead of say, Japan or China...

biUOyWezC7I

I have his book, it is good. I have not gotten all the way through it yet, it is a little repetitive. But it is because he throroughly addresses every point, and lays out a very robust case.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have his book, it is good. I have not gotten all the way through it yet, it is a little repetitive. But it is because he throroughly addresses every point, and lays out a very robust case.

On The Historicity...?

Yeah, I hear it's long and thorough.

Please, do share any tidbits you find particularly interesting.

There are no historical records of Jesus outside of the Bible: Fact.

Mithra, Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, Hercules, Thor and even Joseph all had similar stories of miracle births and healing the sick. The oldest one, I believe, was Horus, from ancient Egypt.

Originally posted by Blakemore
There are no historical records of Jesus outside of the Bible: Fact.

Mithra, Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, Hercules, Thor and even Joseph all had similar stories of miracle births and healing the sick. The oldest one, I believe, was Horus, from ancient Egypt.



I think these are the main dying and rising gods that predate Hey-Zeus...
...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think these are the main dying and rising gods that predate Hey-Zeus...
... Inanna looks hot. Are you sure she's a virgin?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Inanna looks hot. Are you sure she's a virgin?

Haha.. that I don't know.

She may even be a fertility goddess of some sort, who knows...

...

dark

Yup, He absolutely did... not only that, but He still does as the the Son of God.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yup, He absolutely did... not only that, but He still does as the the Son of God. dur

Fixed. And...

https://c.tenor.com/QwcxGNHGU_8AAAAC/dr-evil-right.gif

Originally posted by Blakemore
There are no historical records of Jesus outside of the Bible: Fact.




https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died Josephus' record was a plagiarism, the others only mention the "Christ" or "Jesus, brother of James."

They don't actually go into the detail that you read in the Bible. People can't even accurately say when he was born, and seriously, a virgin birth? Curing lepracy? Walking on water? Use your ****ing head.

Call down dude. You implied his existence was factually own recorded in the Bible. I posted an argument piece showing thats not quite true.

"the Christ" is a title. Many messiahs were recorded around the time.

It's much more likely the Catholic Church wanted to unite all the messiahs into one single entity. Even the Orthodox Christians see Jesus existing in different forms than just one man.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died Originally posted by Blakemore
Josephus' record was a plagiarism, the others only mention the "Christ" or "Jesus, brother of James."

It's true, the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus is highly suspect and almost certainly a forgery. That's the problem with a lot of the remaining history over the years is that it has so much Christian contamination all over it. "Christian interpolation," which is basically the fancy word for scribal counterfeit/forgery/alteration. Even the biggest atheist proponent of Jesus' historicity, Bart Ehrman, has books and talks about the many forgeries and contradictions. So the evidence of Jesus' existence to say one way or the other is highly tampered with and anything that would confirm his non-existence was likely destroyed. You'd have to assume that if these religious scribes were adding things to make Jesus seem like a real historical person, they'd almost certainly be eliminating anything that questioned his existence. Jesus' historicity became more central to the religion as it grew.


"It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure..."

It's statements like that that are misleading and annoying. Clearly there was a "dying and rising" god trend at the time, and there was apparently even a trend to insert them into history. It doesn't seem much different from our fiction writings today, like Spiderman is New York city or pick your superhero. Why is that so difficult to imagine?

Another thing that tends to get left out is that there seems to be sort of an institutionalized dogma of historicity in academia because if you even question the idea, you will have your career derailed terribly. So it's only those who don't rely on such funding and career stability who can question the dogma.

It just seems odd to me that if you're writing allegorical parables about this new Jewish "dying and rising" god, why would you bother to pick a real person to base it on? Obviously all the miracles, raising people from the dead, walking on water, and death and resurrection, etc is made up. So it just makes sense that the entire figure is made up, too.

But anyway, since the history is such a mess, I think Richard Carrier has said that he puts the odds of there actually being an historical Jesus at about 1 in 3.

Oh, and any article that continues to show "Jesus the White Dude" pictures needs to immediately lose all credibility... haha...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's true, the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus is highly suspect and almost certainly a forgery. That's the problem with a lot of the remaining history over the years is that it has so much Christian contamination all over it. "Christian interpolation," which is basically the fancy word for scribal counterfeit/forgery/alteration. Even the biggest atheist proponent of Jesus' historicity, Bart Ehrman, has books and talks about the many forgeries and contradictions. So the evidence of Jesus' existence to say one way or the other is highly tampered with and anything that would confirm his non-existence was likely destroyed. You'd have to assume that if these religious scribes were adding things to make Jesus seem like a real historical person, they'd almost certainly be eliminating anything that questioned his existence. Jesus' historicity became more central to the religion as it grew.


"It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure..."

It's statements like that that are misleading and annoying. Clearly there was a "dying and rising" god trend at the time, and there was apparently even a trend to insert them into history. It doesn't seem much different from our fiction writings today, like Spiderman is New York city or pick your superhero. Why is that so difficult to imagine?

Another thing that tends to get left out is that there seems to be sort of an institutionalized dogma of historicity in academia because if you even question the idea, you will have your career derailed terribly. So it's only those who don't rely on such funding and career stability who can question the dogma.

It just seems odd to me that if you're writing allegorical parables about this new Jewish "dying and rising" god, why would you bother to pick a real person to base it on? Obviously all the miracles, raising people from the dead, walking on water, and death and resurrection, etc is made up. So it just makes sense that the entire figure is made up, too.

But anyway, since the history is such a mess, I think Richard Carrier has said that he puts the odds of there actually being an historical Jesus at about 1 in 3.

Oh, and any article that continues to show "Jesus the White Dude" pictures needs to immediately lose all credibility... haha... Jesus is the Sun, born again on the Spring equinox to travel with his friends, the first two being fisherman, or Pisces.

You have 5 senses that reflect Jesus in your life.

Durr whadya think!

Obvs not

Originally posted by Wonder Man
You have 5 senses that reflect Jesus in your life.

Yeah, good point. My five senses can see, smell, hear, touch, and taste bullshit.

Light up a life. And get over it.

Open your mind. And you will go free.

(the realest Christ, Dafoe Christ)

What first hand accounts of Jesus exist?

Originally posted by Klaw
What first hand accounts of Jesus exist?

None, really. And what's amusingly desperate is that apologists will claim there are "4 independent gospels about Jesus," but Mark was first and the others basically were copying from it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Even the biggest atheist proponent of Jesus' historicity, Bart Ehrman, has books and talks about the many forgeries and contradictions. So the evidence of Jesus' existence to say one way or the other is highly tampered with and anything that would confirm his non-existence was likely destroyed. You'd have to assume that if these religious scribes were adding things to make Jesus seem like a real historical person, they'd almost certainly be eliminating anything that questioned his existence. Jesus' historicity became more central to the religion as it grew.



Yeah but as you said, Bart Ehrman purely from a historical and his Biblical scholarship perspective absolutely believes Jesus existed and was crucified.

And he's done extensive research on the matter. Spent his whole life on it in fact. Even became an atheist during his study.

^ Right. As have others.

But there's other potential reasons for that other than it's the most likely conclusion. It's the academic dogma you don't dare question. They seem to ignore contradictory evidence from my point of view. There's nothing extraordinary or implausible about Jesus really living as a normal guy, it just doesn't make as much sense given the evidence/lack thereof.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Amongst historians there is little to no debate that Jesus existed. Its an accepted fact. Whether he did what the Bible says i.e. heal lepers is of course under debate.
Hm. But even if it's granted that there was a historical person who roughly corresponds to the settings of the biblical character, if many or most of the anecdotes attributed to him were fabrications, then can he even still be said to have been that character? For example, there was a historical person named Dracula, but he wasn't Dracula; that character is fictional. Not only because vampires don't exist, like demigods don't, but because the character and his activities were expanded to the point of being unrecognizable as the person he was based on.

Will the real slim shady please stand uhp

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Hm. But even if it's granted that there was a historical person who roughly corresponds to the settings of the biblical character, if many or most of the anecdotes attributed to him were fabrications, then can he even still be said to have been that character? For example, there was a historical person named Dracula, but he wasn't Dracula; that character is fictional. Not only because vampires don't exist, like demigods don't, but because the character and his activities were expanded to the point of being unrecognizable as the person he was based on.


Well in this case you could take the miracles out and he would still be a historical figure who called to live humbly, be good people and worship God. He still would have been Jewish and still would have been crucified for his message.

I don't think that would be a radically different person like your Dracula example.

7KCp2k5Nf_I

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Even the biggest atheist proponent of Jesus' historicity, Bart Ehrman, has books and talks about the many forgeries and contradictions. So the evidence of Jesus' existence to say one way or the other is highly tampered with and anything that would confirm his non-existence was likely destroyed. You'd have to assume that if these religious scribes were adding things to make Jesus seem like a real historical person, they'd almost certainly be eliminating anything that questioned his existence. Jesus' historicity became more central to the religion as it grew. Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah but as you said, Bart Ehrman purely from a historical and his Biblical scholarship perspective absolutely believes Jesus existed and was crucified.

And he's done extensive research on the matter. Spent his whole life on it in fact. Even became an atheist during his study.

Not to accuse you of doing this, but you hear the common Christian apologist refrain: "The majority of scholars agree." Here is where that argument is flawed/fallacious: It's an appeal to authority and doesn't pay attention to the actual 'evidence' or 'situation'. In fact it's kind of a distraction from the actual evidence, a red herring. As I've mentioned, the consensus in academia is skewed because it is a dogma you don't question. Of course, in Christian circles they are usually required to sign statements of belief. Christian professors have been fired for questioning far less controversial dogma. And even amongst many secular scholars the threat of losing your job or having your career derailed and reputation smeared is very real. Apparently many secular scholars are more skeptical of Jesus' existence in private than they are in public. You have to realize that Christians need Jesus to exist. They have established a conclusion beforehand, whereas secular atheists don't really care one way or the other, it's just an intellectual pursuit of what's likely to be true. So Christian apologist "scholars" are entirely biased and untrustworthy on the subject.

So given that, here are a few quotes from secular 'Mythicist' historians talking about facts that can't be ignored if you want to assess the situation. This is probably why many secular scholars are more skeptical in private than in public...



"When we look at the gospels this looks very similar to other gods we have. For example, we have biographies of Romulus, kind of the gospels of Hercules, we have something very similar to the gospels written about Aesop. These are non-existent people and they have whole elaborate biographies written about them. We have a similar thing in the Old Testament. It's pretty widely agreed in mainstream scholarship today that Moses is a mythical person. Exodus and Deuteronomy are essentially gospels that were fictionally written about this guy. So when we see lots of literature like this where people were constantly inventing myths, stories, and biographies of non-existent people; when we look at something like the gospels that are full of supernatural and ridiculous events that look very similar to these things, we really can't tell that they are historical vs. mythical. In my book I don't argue that the gospels prove Jesus *didn't* exist, I just argue that they don't offer proof that he *did* because they look too much like the same thing we get for other non-existent deities."

-Dr. Richard Carrier




"I'll end just briefly talking about the parallel gods. It's very suspicious, I think, that you would have all around the Jews, every single other culture in the area, in the Roman Empire: the Persians, the Greeks, the Syrians, the Egyptians, even the Celts (through the Thracians), all of them adopted this idea of taking their religion and combining it with a dying and rising god cult. They all did this with non-existent gods, but they all claimed these gods existed in history, in time, and wrote stories about them. Zalmoxis is the Thracian version of it. Mithra is the Persian version, although he's not a dying and rising god, he does undergoe a passion. He goes through a struggle or suffering through which he acquires victory over death. We also have Osiris is plainly a dying and rising god . . . allegories for a cosmic death and resurrection . . . So here we have a direct parallel, we have a whole religion in which we have a dying and rising cult that pre-dates Christianity, that is immediately adjacent to Judea in Egypt where there is a major population of Jews . . . So it looks like what happened, is the Jews were surrounded by the dying and rising gods and these mystery cults that also had fictive brotherhoods just like Christianity, and basically tried to create a palatable Jewish version of this . . . So you can't point to differences that are relevant. What's relevant is they took the basic core idea of a mystery religion in which you gain salvation in the afterlife through baptism, which a lot of these involved. The idea of doing that by worshiping a son of god (or daughter of god in some cases) who was crucified, or killed and resurrected; this was so common around there and then suddenly for the Jews to actually get one is highly improbable that they just spontaneously thought of this on their own without any influence from all their neighbors around them, or from all the pilgrims . . . It's impossible that they didn't know about this . . . And yet all these other dying and rising gods, all these struggling and suffereing savior gods, all of them were non-existent people. So it would be an extraordinary claim to say that Jesus is the *only* one who actually was an historical person."

-Dr. Richard Carrier




"I tend to think what you had was a savior god perhaps adapted from one of the dying and rising deities well-known to Jews in this synchronistic milieu in which they had lived for hundreds and hundreds of years. Jesus may have been kind of an amalgam of Dionysus, Attus, Osiris, etc. all of them known to Jews for hundreds of years. Or he may simply have been the latest evolution of Yahweh or Jehovah himself who there is some evidence was understood as a dying and rising god way back there..."

-Dr. Robert M. Price



(quotes transcribed from these YouTube sources)

ep-AN7U4OLg&t=2338s

M_syXSSLRzs&t=2050s

Just a quick addendum to the previous post...


The study of ancient Rome and Biblical history is likely dominated by Christians and associated believers, so to say "Most experts agree" is like saying nothing at all given their disqualifying level of bias. Scientists who determine a conclusion before they even observe evidence aren't good scientists, and in fact aren't doing science. Likewise Christians who have already made up their minds are not trustworthy sources, and in fact aren't doing history. The conflict of interest and cognitive dissonance should disqualify them.

Euhemerization - is actually a term illustrating the precedent for placing gods in history.

A really good talk on Mystery Cults and how they resemble Christianity...

E6Psu5X2X1w

Imagine being a Christian.

Imagine having to wear glasses all or most of your life.

Imagine being just visually able to read the tiny texts that said Jesus cured blind people.

Imagine then being told he will return again, but we don't know when.

One time Jesus will come back and I will see the light. Any minute now.

Then imagine talking to someone who had laser eye surgery and can see perfectly fine, or someone who has never suffered from any kind of visual impairment.

You could say something like "The Lord-ah cures the blind-ah!"

MGTOW like christianity because it puts man above woman (kinda like a lot of religions, but whatever) yet if God or Jesus existed, then shouldn't that be de facto anyway?

Another nice little documentary, but about Emperor Constantine this time...

0E_bRADucBI

Originally posted by Blakemore
MGTOW like christianity because it puts man above woman (kinda like a lot of religions, but whatever) yet if God or Jesus existed, then shouldn't that be de facto anyway? what is mgtow?

"men get their own way"

It's a movement of incel gamer men who think they should be in charge of society because of their gamer score, but social justice warriors like Anita Sarkeesian are ruining it for them just because she doesn't know how to play Mario Bros.

"Men Going Their Own Way"

The rest is correct, angry incels angry at women because they're incels.

I can't stand Anita Sarkeesian. She was an average student who rightfully got attacked because she didn't know anything about video games and instead focused on basic gender stereotypes.

If you watch her early videos in '08 where she addresses True Blood, you see just does the same thing.

She's only popular because gamers are ****ing ruthless when it comes to making fun of stupidity for e-points and she's mildly attractive, whereas gamers tend to look like Backfire's asscrack.

Really, nothing she says is valid, but when idiots get patreon donations for making fun of her, they really had to reach for new material to keep the revenue, which kind of destroyed their credibility and anyone else's. Even UKIP are gone.

Jesus diz

Hq8G9-CFJzY

Originally posted by Blakemore
MGTOW like christianity because it puts man above woman (kinda like a lot of religions, but whatever) yet if God or Jesus existed, then shouldn't that be de facto anyway?


You mean because Jesus was a man?

I agree that's problematic for anyone who claims he's God.

Well, women can give birth! All I have to do is, well, I barely have to do anything.

Another interesting documentary...

c3g0Rra1V_A

This was a really good conversation with Richard Carrier and some other good guests, like Holy Kookaid from YT, a big former Christian. The first third of this is particularly good, and it picks up again about halfway through...

AsHR24SzVpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Another interesting documentary...

c3g0Rra1V_A


Been speculated that the Jesus myth was built in part around the Osiris myth. Being killed, rising from the dead and promising eternal afterlife to believers.

Originally posted by Blakemore
"men get their own way"

It's a movement of incel gamer men who think they should be in charge of society because of their gamer score, but social justice warriors like Anita Sarkeesian are ruining it for them just because she doesn't know how to play Mario Bros. Originally posted by Robtard
"Men Going Their Own Way"

The rest is correct, angry incels angry at women because they're incels. Oh, that thing Surt was a member of?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Oh, that thing Surt was a member of? Surt, StarFly, cdtm, well all of them on the discord.

In fact, they had video game rooms where they would play video games with each other and laugh at us because we're losers who don't play video games.

Works of antiquity verify that Jesus walked the Earth. To reach a different conclusion, is the product of intellectual laziness.

It's a good, concise summary, but I just wish it wasn't read like one big run-on sentence...

Yvv7uw5uZjI

How come nobody found Jesus' bones?

You'd think with all the dinosaur bones and pharaoh bones we find, someone would have found Jesus bones.

Originally posted by Blakemore
How come nobody found Jesus' bones?

You'd think with all the dinosaur bones and pharaoh bones we find, someone would have found Jesus bones.

Uh, hello... he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. No bones to find!

(convenient excuse, I know)

Just reposting for this new thread page...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's a good, concise summary, but I just wish it wasn't read like one big run-on sentence...

Yvv7uw5uZjI

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Uh, hello... he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. No bones to find!

(convenient excuse, I know) Oh yeah.

Wait, then how come no one else gets to keep their bones in heaven?

Hacks! I call hacks!

Originally posted by Blakemore
How come nobody found Jesus' bones?

You'd think with all the dinosaur bones and pharaoh bones we find, someone would have found Jesus bones.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Uh, hello... he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. No bones to find!

(convenient excuse, I know)


Well that's a non win situation for Christians (and Muslims who also believe he was raised up to Heaven, but don't believe he died first).

If you find his bones, it proves their theology wrong, if you don't find his bones, it's a "convenient excuse" for them shrug

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well that's a non win situation for Christians (and Muslims who also believe he was raised up to Heaven, but don't believe he died first).

If you find his bones, it proves their theology wrong, if you don't find his bones, it's a "convenient excuse" for them shrug

Jesus exists, we found his bones floating in the Bosporos river.

Wait, you said he rose into heaven, bones included.

Then they're Noah's?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well that's a non win situation for Christians (and Muslims who also believe he was raised up to Heaven, but don't believe he died first).

If you find his bones, it proves their theology wrong, if you don't find his bones, it's a "convenient excuse" for them shrug

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. That's why it's good to not believe stupid, unrealistic things in the first place. It's a belief that is unfalsifiable.

And there are plenty other compelling reasons to not take the religion seriously, so don't really give a shite about finding or not finding his bones.

Yes there was a historical Jesus (Yeshua). What there never has been is Evolution.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh boy here we go...

IF Jesus existed (which is a big if) the earliest writings weren't written until decades after his life, so not eyewitnesses. Even Apologists agree to this. No major historians of the time mention Jesus. And the 1 or two that do are obvious forgeries from the Middle ages.

So IF he existed and the myths are based on a real person, he was just another mundane preacher, and the story embellishments were added much later. Which kind of negates the whole point of Christianity, now doesn't it?

On top of that it was common practice to euhemerize supernatural figures, that is to place them into an historical setting (probably makes them more relatable, ya know?).

It's a very inconvenient fact for apologists that there are documented dying-and-rising deities predating Jesus (Mithras, Osiris, Dyonysus, Zalmoxis, Innana, Adonis, Romulus, Asclepius, Baal, etc) that were also euhemerized. Probably best to ignore and obfuscate this fact? Somehow Jesus was different, yes?

Snap out of it and stop trolling us.

According to Greek and Hebrew texts, Jesus existed. The citations that you have quoted are lies.

Someone's been prepping for a fanfic. Hey you should make God and Jesus kiss. MWAH!