Can you handle the Truth?

Started by Pandemoniac432 pages

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do Mary and the Apostles pray for me? Should I ask them to pray for me? What is the problem with asking the dead to pray for me?

Mary and the apostles do not pray for or intercede for people, and they are not our mediators. Jesus is our Intercessor, He prays for us (i.e. us believers), and Jesus is the Mediator between God and humanity. No where in the Bible are we instructed talk to dead people in prayer. Talking to the dead is called necromancy, and God forbids the practice of necromancy.

Mary is not divine and you should never pray to her. It is egregiously unscriptural to pray to anyone other than God in the Name of Jesus. Mary was simply a vessel to that God chose to bring His Son into the world so that He could redeem humanity from the wages of their sins (i.e. the second death in the Lake of Fire), so that we could be brought back to God and receive eternal life.

So Mary was actually a victim of divined rape, and by so being forced to go through a series of, to say the least, pretty confusing and uncomfortable events.
In all that she apparently accepted her faith and did the best for the child Jesus while knowing she was just a mere tool in a desperate plan.
Now you tell us she is not worthy of being addressed as a holy entity?
Jesus had God in his pocket, he's the bible's superman. Mary just had to pull this off on her own with only her husband as support (while it even wasn't his kid!).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the Romans recorded the death of Jesus. However, nothing more.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ. Further more, In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.
No, Nazareth, infact the twon of Nazareth doesn't even exsist.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ. Further more, In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.
No, Nazareth, infact the twon of Nazareth doesn't even exsist.

So, it is like 2000 years form now, someone saying that Bob lived. The question is, which one. I give the benefit of doubt that a teacher named Jesus lived. Perhaps I am too generous, but it makes more sense that a person was the start of Christianity, and that person was Jesus.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, it is like 2000 years form now, someone saying that Bob lived. The question is, which one. I give the benefit of doubt that a teacher named Jesus lived. Perhaps I am too generous, but it makes more sense that a person was the start of Christianity, and that person was Jesus.

Christianity is a construct that utilizes several religions as a back-bone. Jesus was a very common mottif.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Christianity is a construct that utilizes several religions as a back-bone. Jesus was a very common mottif.

I understand that, but I still think that it is reasonable to believe that a person started the religion. Most religions in the world are constructs that were started by a person.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand that, but I still think that it is reasonable to believe that a person started the religion. Most religions in the world are constructs that were started by a person.

Not, really, many religions according to there lore are started by a person not based on fact.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Not, really, many religions according to there lore are started by a person not based on fact.

True, but they were created by a person. When I say Jesus, I am communicating the person who started Christianity regardless rather the person's true name was Jesus. For example Buddhism was not founded by a person named Buddha.

Siddhartha Gautoma 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True, but they were created by a person. When I say Jesus, I am communicating the person who started Christianity regardless rather the person's true name was Jesus. For example Buddhism was not founded by a person named Buddha.

But, That's my point, Christianity as we know it was created by the church. Prior to it, there were many different cults with different traditions, the Church just brought them together.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
But, That's my point, Christianity as we know it was created by the church. Prior to it, there were many different cults with different traditions, the Church just brought them together.

I told you, I agree with you, but I also said it was reasonable to refer to the founder of Christianity as Jesus and assume he was a real person. We only disagree on assumptions.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
But, That's my point, Christianity as we know it was created by the church. Prior to it, there were many different cults with different traditions, the Church just brought them together.

Christianity was not created by the church.

Christianity is a Man, and those who by faith follow Him, serve, Him, and worship Him as Lord and Savior.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Christianity was [b]not created by the church.
[/B] [/B]

Yeah, it was. . .

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yeah, it was. . .

Christianity is a Person. The church did not create Jesus. Jesus created the church.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Christianity is a Person. The church did not create Jesus. Jesus created the church.

Jesus of Nazereth is not a historical character and the Church was created by the Romans.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Jesus of Nazereth is not a historical character and the Church was created by the Romans.

Way to take logic to religion and beat the crap out of it! 💃

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Jesus of Nazereth is not a historical character and the Church was created by the Romans.

How could a person who I commended yesterday for hitting the nail on the head in a couple of other posts have completely struck out today?

Prove or rather substantiate that Jesus is not a historical Person.

Support your claim that the church was created by Romans.

*waits eagerly, with bated breath, while hanging on the edge of my

seat, and leaning towards the monitor*

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How could a person who I commended yesterday for hitting the nail on the head in a couple of other posts have completely struck out today?

Prove or rather substantiate that Jesus is not a historical Person.

Support your claim that the church was created by Romans.

[b]*waits eagerly, with bated breath, while hanging on the edge of my

seat, and leaning towards the monitor* [/B]



And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

'Never heard of the place' – Josephus
In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).
A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.
Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.
Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.

At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.

None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such ruins exist.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar

Uh...that is not remotely what I was expecting from you. It all looks like gibberish.

Can you give me the microwave version/summary of all of that? (Did you forget that we live in an instant society?)

As for the Catholic church, anyone with a nack on history knows that prior to the church there was no real Christian religion. Just various cults scatered through out the empire . So, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was a church.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Uh...that is not [B]remotely what I was expecting from you. It all looks like gibberish.

Can you give me the microwave version/summary of all of that? (Did you forget that we live in an instant society?) [/B]

No, take it or leave it.