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.
No, it would not have spread like wildfire; as Paul was too busy killing Christians for the Roman government.
Most of the disciples were put to death, so nobody else was about to discuss anything to do with Jesus.
And the Jews were having none of a Messiah who preached meekness and forgiveness, when they were expecting a king to conquer their enemies.
There are portions of the Bible I too consider inaccurate, mainly Old Testament; as events described do not line up with archeological findings...but these are not important when it comes to the message as a whole. An example being the flood account, I'm sure it rained at some point; but the actual flood was caused by an earthquake creating the straights of Gibraltar. While the facts may be off a bit, and for those who believe in God; one can still state He certainly had a hand in it.
While I won't go as far as to say Jesus' existence is unimportant, His message is what I feel is of more importance. If people actually followed the instructions, I don't think even you could disagree the world would be a much better place for all.
Very good points.
The historical evidence for Jesus is there, and most Christians believe in his miracles, his claims of being “the chosen one” and his overall divinity. (there are after all a handful of Non-Trinitarian Christian groups too.)
I don’t necessarily believe the great flood of the Old Testament ever actually occurred, but that is another debate for another time.
No, it would not have spread like wildfire; as Paul was too busy killing Christians for the Roman government.
Most of the disciples were put to death, so nobody else was about to discuss anything to do with Jesus.
And the Jews were having none of a Messiah who preached meekness and forgiveness, when they were expecting a king to conquer their enemies.
There are portions of the Bible I too consider inaccurate, mainly Old Testament; as events described do not line up with archeological findings...but these are not important when it comes to the message as a whole. An example being the flood account, I'm sure it rained at some point; but the actual flood was caused by an earthquake creating the straights of Gibraltar. While the facts may be off a bit, and for those who believe in God; one can still state He certainly had a hand in it.
While I won't go as far as to say Jesus' existence is unimportant, His message is what I feel is of more importance. If people actually followed the instructions, I don't think even you could disagree the world would be a much better place for all.
Well, no 1 Paul only killed Christians for 2 years max after Jesus' crucifixion before this supposed Damascus road experience. So he would have nothing to do with it spreading. The story is so phantasmagorical that it would have taken on a life of its own.
No 2 I don't know how an earthquake in Gibraltar would be related to Noah's flood so I can't comment on that.
So I want to focus on your last paragraph. Let's set aside whether or not the gospel Jesus was a myth or not. Let's go with what he said. Actually in terms of things Jesus said that was goo stuff there is actually very little and it was all said by others long before Jesus. "Treat others as you would want to be treated" according to Wiki is found over all cultures and world religions so Jesus is basically mimicking the Golden Rule. The other I can think of is "turn the other cheek" but then one has to ask, "If you wife was being raped and you could stop it by killing the rapist what would you do?" Jesus that if hate someone in your heart
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.Matthew 5:22
Is hurting a member your family sufficient cause in Jesus eyes to hate a person and want to kill them?
Fortunately I don't have have this conflict and if I have a gun and someone hurting a member of my family I just point and fire without a second thought.
So does the "turn the other cheek" philosophy make the world a better place? Does it help an abused wife who continuously turns the other cheek when her husband constantly bashes her had against a wall?
1. I've taken a course in educational law, not law in general.
2. This isn't a court of law. What people believe about life is not held to the same standards as issues in a court of law.
3. No, we are talking about what you prove, because the title of your thread is, in part, "and I Can Prove It".
4. No, you're sparring with someone who is trying to be open-minded to the arguments on both sides.
1. Educational law isn't the same as trial law. I have studied trial law.
2. So what about the book, "Jesus on Trial"? Why can a Christian put Jesus on trial and I can't?
3. Come on, don't keep skipping out. I asked you a question. What would it take to convince you the gospel Jesus is a myth?
4. Then take the side of an atheist for a moment (which you profess to be unless you're an atheist who believe Jesus rose from the dead) and tell us what would be proof to you that the gospel Jesus wasn't real.
Very good points. The historical evidence for Jesus is there
Where? And don't say "the gospels" because I've already shown you most historians consider the gospels theological documents, not historical ones.
"Are the Gospels historically accurate?
The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do NOT contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses."
Boy, Mike it take some real brass rocks to tell University-educated PhD scholars who majored in Biblical studies and ancients religions and got their PhD's in those fields that they don't know what in the hell they're talking about. Leave it to you. Your ramblings have nothing to do with the reality of how the destruction of the temple and the loss of the sacrificial altar would have led to the adoption of the avatar Jesus as a one-time Lamb-of-God sacrifice to replace the annual sacrifice of the lamb which was lost, and I presented the evidence of just that. I mean it fits together like a hand into a glove. Most people would be capable of seeing the connection. But not you, no siree Bob. You're going to go with Paul being in Corinth between the 50's to the 60's so somehow that proves the temple destruction couldn't have influenced Jesus being chosen as the savior. Once again, only you know how those two fit together.
Your hand-picked scholars, if indeed they said what you say they did . . .I didn't bother to check . . . are in a minority of scholars. We know that Paul had his vision of Jesus just a few years after Jesus was crucified. We know that Paul died sometime in the mid 60's. Therefore he wrote before the temple was destroyed. You and your scholars are wrong and the theory you're now pushing is nonsense.
Again, Christianity began shortly after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection which was either in AD.30 or 33. The temple wasn't destroyed until AD.70 so, no, the destruction of the Temple had no influence on ''Jesus being chosen as the Savior.''
And your posts are becoming increasingly childish in nature.
1. Educational law isn't the same as trial law. I have studied trial law.
2. So what about the book, "Jesus on Trial"? Why can a Christian put Jesus on trial and I can't?
3. Come on, don't keep skipping out. I asked you a question. What would it take to convince you the gospel Jesus is a myth?
4. Then take the side of an atheist for a moment (which you profess to be unless you're an atheist who believe Jesus rose from the dead) and tell us what would be proof to you that the gospel Jesus wasn't real.
1. My point exactly. They're not the same.
2. Go ahead and put Jesus on trail. Fine with me. But you still haven't PROVEN your point. And again, I don't think either side can PROVE their position.
3. I'm not skipping out. I don't think you can PROVE that Jesus was merely a myth; and I already don't believe the magic/god 'thing'.
4. You're not paying attention. How many more times do I have to say that I don't believe in the magic/god 'thing'. I still think Jesus probably existed an taught religious beliefs. But AGAIN, I don't think you (or they) can go back 2,000 years and prove either position.
Actually, I think you just hit the nail on the head with the bolded. I don't think you can PROVE it either way. I don't believe in the god-magic stuff, but my not believing it isn't proof. And yes, you are confused...because you don't have a grasp of what 'proof' actually is.
That is what I said to him. He makes a convincing case for not believing, but he didn't prove anything.
That's where you're deluded. Many have proof internally that he exists, which is what matters to them, and vastly surpasses your opinion, and why you're largely wasting your time here. You've got this crazy idea that people will drop what they sense and think, to switch to your ideas. And you just keep at it, while nothing changes. LOL
He starting to sound like one of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Where? And don't say "the gospels" because I've already shown you most historians consider the gospels theological documents, not historical ones.
"Are the Gospels historically accurate?
The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do NOT contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses."
You are cherry picking what the Wiki article says and implying what it doesn't say. Most scholars do not deny that the gospels contain history though scholars disagree about which details are historical and which ones aren't. They simply recognize that the Gospels weren't written AS history. Nevertheless, as per the wiki article,
Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies,[²²][²³] the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.[²²]
That is what I said to him. He makes a convincing case for not believing, but he didn't prove anything.
He doesn't even make a convincing case for not believing. His 'Jesus is a copy of ancient gods and heroes' argument has no credibility and was refuted by Bart Ehrman in his book 'Did Jesus Exist.' The argument is a popular one among Jesus mythicists but it really has no legs to it.
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.
