Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dude, if you can't refute my post just say so!! Don't try to evade the issued by discussing the validity of Wiki. I didn't say Wiki should always be taken as true, I said that you don't take Wiki or any other source as true but you cross reference a source with other sources. Wiki has plenty of links at the bottom of the articles that makes that easy to do.
Now forget about Wiki and refute the individual points of my post...if you can.
Rafius, let me be very, very clear on something.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
I am not going to try to convince you that Jesus was the Son of God nor that he was in any way divine.
"Divine" and "God" are terms you have nothing but contempt for, why would I bother? If you don't know my position already, you haven't been paying attention. Yes I think he was the Son of God. Yes I believe he was divine. Telling you how I know that and why I have tremendous confidence in it is not something I'd bother telling you because it is precious to me and you are a person who I already know full-well will only make fun of it. The New Testament term is "casting your pearls before swine" and it's quite apt. Why would I be so foolish to believe that you will have any shred of respect for my beliefs? I already know better.
I see divine providence in the fact that from incredibly humble beginnings, Jesus of Nazareth's following grew to be the largest religious belief on the planet. You can see it as coincidence or whatever you want. Go ahead, make fun of the man. Enjoy it. But at some level you must realize how pathetic it looks. Bitter much? I gotta wonder what the story behind such an extreme zealot for atheism is.
"Divine" and "God" are terms you have nothing but contempt for, why would I bother? If you don't know my position already, you haven't been paying attention. Yes I think he was the Son of God. Yes I believe he was divine.
Yet you continue to argue that he was "insignificant", "a preacher".
Quote:
The New Testament term is "casting your pearls before swine" and it's quite apt. Why would I be so foolish to believe that you will have any shred of respect for my beliefs? I already know better.
Why do you think your beliefs should command automatic respect. I would think that someone who refers to those who don't share their particular beliefs as "swine" should be a little more reticent about demanding 'respect'.
Quote:
I see divine providence in the fact that from incredibly humble beginnings, Jesus of Nazareth's following grew to be the largest religious belief on the planet. You can see it as coincidence or whatever you want. Go ahead, make fun of the man. Enjoy it. But at some level you must realize how pathetic it looks. Bitter much? I gotta wonder what the story behind such an extreme zealot for atheism is.
What you need to do is decide which Jesus you are going for. On one hand you claim the he was insignificant, on the other, that he was the son of a god. Which one are you trying to convince me lived. We have two characters here.
1. An insignificant Rabbi preacher called Yeshua ben Yoseph.
2. 'Jesus The Christ', son of a god as described in the NT.
Let's be honest, Jesus of Nazareth would not have been viewed as a person of great significance at the time.
So let me get this straight. We are talking about a time when people believed in superstition, gods and miracles. Along comes a dude that performs miracles the like of which the world had never seen before or since. He draws crowds so vast that people are trampled in their haste to hear him speak. He raises people from the dead, he cures the sick, he makes blind people see again, he feeds thousands of people with a few fish and a small amount of bread and still has basketfulls of food left over when the thousands have been fed, he enters Jerusalem and the whole city turn out to welcome him, he causes so much trouble and who-ha that the Romans put him on public trial, thousands of citizens throng the streets to demand his execution, the Romans comply and publicly execute him then, as a coup de grace, he comes back to life after three days. Yet, you believe that the chap that did all this "would not have been viewed as a person of great significance at the time."
Yeah right!! Your own Bible tells you: "And immediately His fame spread throughout all the region around Galilee." (Mark 1:18)
Quote:
The only contemporary historian who had any reason to bother mentioning him would have been Josephus --
Au contraire. There were others. Coumella, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedeus, Philo Judaeus, Pliny, Pomponius Meta, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Theon, Valerius Maximus...they were all alive and writing during the alleged lifetime of your Jesus but none of the writings of any of these historians offer any mention of Jesus or the miracles associated with him through biblical writings. If the writings of these men recorded fact from the time frame surrounding the supposed life of Jesus but they make no mention of Jesus wouldn't logic then dictate that Jesus was a myth invented by Christian writers who had the motive of establishing and promoting their own religion?
You're asking me to believe that this man Jesus really lived, performed miracles beyond the likes of anything ever seen by man, yet he garnered not the attention of a single historian of the day, and wasn't even found to be note-worthy by those who claimed to know him and witness these miracles until he'd been dead for almost four decades?? Historians of the era might be expected to at least MENTION a miracle worker and teacher of multitudes wouldn't you think? Their silence is significant.
In a mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is no mention of this Jesus. Nor, may I add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles, increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words old chap, the only information of the life of your Jesus comes from Christian believers.
It makes absolutely no sense that there would be no writings about this Jesus character in his own generation, especially given that when he died, this is alleged to have happened (Gospel of Matthew):
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
Solar eclipse, earthquake, exposed graves, and BLOODY ZOMBIES MARCHING THROUGH JERUSALEM!!!
It’s kind of hard to believe nobody but the Gospel writers would’ve noticed such events...don't ya think??
So let me get this straight. We are talking about a time when people believed in superstition, gods and miracles. Along comes a dude that performs miracles the like of which the world had never seen before or since. He draws crowds so vast that people are trampled in their haste to hear him speak. He raises people from the dead, he cures the sick, he makes blind people see again, he feeds thousands of people with a few fish and a small amount of bread and still has basketfulls of food left over when the thousands have been fed, he enters Jerusalem and the whole city turn out to welcome him, he causes so much trouble and who-ha that the Romans put him on public trial, thousands of citizens throng the streets to demand his execution, the Romans comply and publicly execute him then, as a coup de grace, he comes back to life after three days. Yet, you believe that the chap that did all this "would not have been viewed as a person of great significance at the time."
Yeah right!! Your own Bible tells you: "And immediately His fame spread throughout all the region around Galilee." (Mark 1:18)
Au contraire. There were others. Coumella, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedeus, Philo Judaeus, Pliny, Pomponius Meta, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Theon, Valerius Maximus...they were all alive and writing during the alleged lifetime of your Jesus but none of the writings of any of these historians offer any mention of Jesus or the miracles associated with him through biblical writings. If the writings of these men recorded fact from the time frame surrounding the supposed life of Jesus but they make no mention of Jesus wouldn't logic then dictate that Jesus was a myth invented by Christian writers who had the motive of establishing and promoting their own religion?
You're asking me to believe that this man Jesus really lived, performed miracles beyond the likes of anything ever seen by man, yet he garnered not the attention of a single historian of the day, and wasn't even found to be note-worthy by those who claimed to know him and witness these miracles until he'd been dead for almost four decades?? Historians of the era might be expected to at least MENTION a miracle worker and teacher of multitudes wouldn't you think? Their silence is significant.
In a mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is no mention of this Jesus. Nor, may I add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles, increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words old chap, the only information of the life of your Jesus comes from Christian believers.
It makes absolutely no sense that there would be no writings about this Jesus character in his own generation, especially given that when he died, this is alleged to have happened (Gospel of Matthew):
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
Solar eclipse, earthquake, exposed graves, and BLOODY ZOMBIES MARCHING THROUGH JERUSALEM!!!
It’s kind of hard to believe nobody but the Gospel writers would’ve noticed such events...don't ya think??
The Jewish historian Josephus barely mentioned his name.
Why would I be so foolish to believe that you will have any shred of respect for my beliefs? I already know better.
I am atheist and I do respect the feelings of Christians. However, I don't think you guys truly "believe" what you all claim. True belief is not something that has been brainwashed into one's head (starting at a young age). True belief is based on tangible evidence.
For example, I believe my car can get me to work today (belief based on evidence that my car has been reliable).
Christians "believe" that accepting Jesus (a person that no one alive has met) as their "personal lord and savior" is required to live forever after death in a sky realm called "Heaven".
"Believe" what you wish. Just know that there is biblical and non-biblical evidence that "God" and Jesus either didn't exist or were completely misunderstood by primitive men.
Jesus of Nazareth's following grew to be the largest religious belief on the planet.
And how does history tell us this happened??????????
The religion was FORCED UPON EVERYONE...that is the only reason it is still around. Had the pagans been given a free choice...do you honestly think they would have jumped on the Christianity band wagon??????????
And how does history tell us this happened??????????
The religion was FORCED UPON EVERYONE...that is the only reason it is still around. Had the pagans been given a free choice...do you honestly think they would have jumped on the Christianity band wagon??????????
To answer you and everyone else who keeps beating this point to death -- virtually every religion was forced on others to one degree or another. The really interesting thing about Christianity is the odds of its success are unbelievably small. Islam and Hinduism were spread and enforced by conquest from their very beginning. Many of your virtually extinct religions out there were much the same. Christianity is a rarity (though not entirely unique) because it began as a taboo religion, branded as fanatical and spent the first three centuries surviving in the face of widespread disdain from the all directions. Some emperors even made the religion illegal and tortured and massacred Christians in brutal fashion. There weren't many compelling reasons to become a Christian other than believing it to be a true message.
From Constantine I on, then yes it was spread by conquest. Constantine I was a major turning point for the worse in Christianity IMHO, but he also may have ensured the survival of the overall religion. Starting with Constantine, yes the Christian religion was pushed on everyone -- but this hardly makes Christianity unique. And it was never among the original Christian teachings to force others to believe. That is a phenomenon that always seems to happen when religion merges with government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your own Bible tells you: 
And how does history tell us this happened??????????
