Question for non-religious types...(most of us I think) [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

-playmaker-

08-11-2010, 08:27 PM

Hawker

08-11-2010, 08:28 PM

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.

-playmaker-

08-11-2010, 08:33 PM

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.
In here?

:wtf:

that's crazy...

Zombles

08-11-2010, 08:34 PM

Nanners

08-11-2010, 08:36 PM

There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.

Real Men Wear Green

08-11-2010, 08:41 PM

Seems to be enough historical evidence to declare the man existed, but not enough to tell us anything of significance about him, why he was crucified or if he ever married. Have to rely on biblical sources for that.
Some people think he was married to Mary Magdalene, and that part of why she is labeled a prostitute is that the people that rewrote Bible passages before their inclusion in the Bible had a misogynist agenda. Don't ask me for evidence of that though, I have no idea where they're coming from, aside from possibly putting too much stock in "the Da Vinci Code."

shlver

08-11-2010, 08:44 PM

There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.
There are Jewish historians who describe him as the Bible does.

DonDadda59

08-11-2010, 08:44 PM

Seems to be enough historical evidence to declare the man existed, but not enough to tell us anything of significance about him, why he was crucified or if he ever married. Have to rely on biblical sources for that.

Show me some of this evidence.

There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.

Bingo.

Looks like I strolled into the OTC at the perfect time, another good old-fashioned religion debate barn burner :banana:

And for the record, from everything I've read/seen the historical 'Jesus' was a man known only as the teacher of righteousness (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) , who was the leader of a breakaway group of Jews called the Essenes who were very much like early Christians.

Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness

Zombles

08-11-2010, 09:02 PM

Show me some of this evidence.

Many classical Roman historians, Tacitus most prominently, and many Jewish ones describe Christ. It wasn't really disputed by the authorities of the day, the men who immediately came after Christ.

“Nero…punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome” (The Annals of Imperial Rome, XV, 44).

Black Joker

08-11-2010, 09:14 PM

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.
+1

Zombles

08-11-2010, 09:20 PM

DonDadda59

08-11-2010, 09:27 PM

Many classical Roman historians, Tacitus most prominently, and many Jewish ones describe Christ. It wasn't really disputed by the authorities of the day, the men who immediately came after Christ.

Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery. No contemporary sources exist mentioning a man who, in front of large crowds, raised the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, gave sight to the blind, etc. No birth certificate, no tax records, no address, no death certificate... even though Romans took many census records and heavily taxed their territories. Jesus' birth supposedly drew the interest of Eastern Kings and instigated the slaughter of an entire generation of Jewish children... but there's no evidence ANYWHERE that this happened. Tacitus was born 20+ years after Jesus was supposed to have died (c. 33 CE) and is not a contemporary source, not that it matters since...

[QUOTE]

Nanners

08-11-2010, 09:38 PM

Tacitus was born in 56AD and it's estimated Christ was crucified sometime towards the end of Tiberius's reign, which ended in 37AD.

So one, at most two, generations removed. There was another historian who predates Tacitus in mentioning Christ but I can't remember his name.

Even if Tacitus was born in 56AD he didnt start writing history the day he was born. It has to be more than one generation

Zombles

08-11-2010, 09:39 PM

Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery.

There's a pretty fierce scholarly debate over the authenticity of Josephus's passage but quite a few historians believe it has a historical core that was partially edited by Christian scholars over the years. I don't know which side to believe but it's not some settled debate.

I don't know where you got this quote from but the original Tacitus references 'Christus' which was a title given to a few deities during that time (see Serapis Christus). Also, he makes it clear that what the 'Chrestians' believed was nothing more than a superstition.

ergo the word superstition in the quote.

Again, I will need more concrete evidence. Since no one has been able to produce non biblical accounts of Jesus' miracle birth (even though the differing biblical accounts contradict each other) Show me evidence of the slaughter of innocents by Herod during Jesus' birth that's found in Matthew. That shouldn't be too hard to find, you'd think someone would have recorded the event- a well known tyrant systematically murdering Jewish children all over Judea...

I'm not saying everything surrounding Christ is true, as an atheist I don't believe in any of it. Sounds like typical creationist mythology. But there's enough proof for me that some person Christ was based off of actually existed.

The concrete evidence you want just doesn't exist. It's a judgment call. Most scholars in the field reject the notion he was purely a creation derived from a pagan influence, and I'll side with most scholars in the field.

DonDadda59

08-11-2010, 09:53 PM

I'm not saying everything surrounding Christ is true, as an atheist I don't believe in any of it. Sounds like typical creationist mythology. But there's enough proof for me that some person Christ was based off of actually existed.

I already said from everything I've seen, the mythical Jesus is to the teacher of righteousness as Santa Claus is to St. Nicholas of Myra.

The concrete evidence you want just doesn't exist. It's a judgment call. Most scholars in the field reject the notion he was purely a creation derived from a pagan influence, and I'll side with most scholars in the field.

The pagan influence is undeniable, can we agree there? I can copy and paste 2 pages worth of breakdown of how Jesus is an amalgam of Pagan Sun God worship religions/stories. Hell, even the earliest Church leaders made it CLEAR that the stories of the Christian messiah was to be regarded in the same way as 'the sons of Jupiter (Zeus)':

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)

^This is an early Christian leader, in the religion's infancy (before the Council of Nicea, Rome usurping the religion, etc), saying that the story of Jesus' birth, life, deeds should be accepted in the same strain as the stories of the birth, life, deeds of the Sons of Jupiter/Zeus, ie, Pagan Gods.

Yet, we're here arguing if a particular pagan myth actually existed?

-playmaker-

08-11-2010, 10:07 PM

so Don, where to you think the name "Jesus Christ" came from?

if there was never a real human with that name? who is responsible for creating it? and why was that name chosen, if there was no human with that name?

it would seem likely to me, that the name was at least inspired by a real human's name...

Batz

08-11-2010, 10:08 PM

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

-playmaker-

08-11-2010, 10:09 PM

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
so old...and long...and has nothing to do with a this topic...

this isn't a religious debate, this is a historical debate...

(there is a zeitgeist 2 btw if you weren't aware)

PistolPete

08-11-2010, 10:15 PM

but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.

uhh what?

DonDadda59

08-11-2010, 10:21 PM

so Don, where to you think the name "Jesus Christ" came from?

The name Jesus is a transcription of the Jewish name Yeshua.

[QUOTE][B]Yeshua, spelled יֵשׁוּעַ (Yē

Jasper

08-11-2010, 10:32 PM

Anything written of a man after his death is just that scripture.

I do not believe in god , but I do believe there was Jesus , because he was not mythical, he was a legit person.

It is up to the masses and individual to determine if you want to worship to a dead human being , or a god that is not proven to be a being.

Western culture seems to believe that god takes on a human quality , but in ancient times could they have looked upon a god as an alien from another universe , solar system , or planet ? :confusedshrug:
no proven facts

Sarcastic

08-11-2010, 10:36 PM

No, Jesus as a historical figure is fictional as well.

jbot

08-12-2010, 02:40 AM

There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.
i agree.

-playmaker-

08-12-2010, 03:19 AM

The name Jesus is a transcription of the Jewish name Yeshua.

Christ(Christus/Chrestos), from the Greek Kristos isn't a 'name' it's a title which means the anointed one.

And like I said before, other deities have had that cognomen/title:

Hope that cleared things up for you :cheers:
not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...

does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?

Big_Dogg

08-12-2010, 03:20 AM

-playmaker-

08-12-2010, 03:24 AM

Balance of probability suggests that Jesus existed around that time in that area,l but as others have mentioned, it's the supposed deeds of this man, his alleged divinity and resurrection are really what is in question.
not in this thread they aren't...

this is for "non-religious" types to debate...we have already come to the conclusion there was no man born from a virgin who is the "literal" son of God...

raiderfan19

08-12-2010, 03:33 AM

not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...

does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?
I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.

-playmaker-

08-12-2010, 05:12 AM

I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.
well yeah...but I have to assume that is because of "Jesus" right?

I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?

If that is the case then I could change my views on this one...

knobs

08-12-2010, 07:02 AM

I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?
it was. it's the english translation for a hebrew term with the same meaning, which was certainly around prior to heyarnold's birth.

DonDadda59

08-12-2010, 11:37 AM

not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...

They got the name from the same place they got the name Hercules, or Zeus, or Mithra, or Santa Claus. The only difference is that Yeshua was a common name for Jewish males during the second period, so it would be like us getting together to write a script about a boxer and blatantly plagiarizing Rocky but changing the main character's name to something generic/common like James.

does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?

What don't you understand about 'Christ' not being a name, but a title? I broke this down in the simplest terms for you. Chirst=Khristos=the annointed one. The title didn't originate with Yeshua, I even showed you an example of a deity with the title 'Christus/Christ' who predates Jesus by a few centuries. Hell, even in the OT, Cyrus, who ended the Babylonian captivity, is called God's annointed one in Isaiah. Cyrus, who wasn't even a Jew, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was bestowed the TITLE.

[QUOTE][I]Thus says the LORD, your redeemer, . . . "I am the LORD, . . . who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers; who says to Jerusalem,

DonDadda59

08-12-2010, 11:57 AM

I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.

Thank you :cheers:

See that prime, even a devout follower of the faith knows the basic difference between a name and a title. But I'm sure you're still convinced Mary and Joseph's last name was Christ :oldlol:

boozehound

08-12-2010, 11:59 AM

well yeah...but I have to assume that is because of "Jesus" right?

I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?

If that is the case then I could change my views on this one...
yes, the christ term in his "name" definitely pre-dates the period.

Basically, his "name" is the equivalent of "Joe, the chosen one". Now, would he have a tattoo of it? On a tangential note, how can a supposed Xtian (like James) have that tattoo without realizing how blasphemous it is?

As to whether he existed as a historical figure, I have no idea. There isnt particularly strong evidence that he did, as almost all accounts are at least decades after his death and from different regions of the ancient Mediterranean world.

boozehound

08-12-2010, 12:03 PM

yes, the christ term in his "name" definitely pre-dates the period.

Basically, his "name" is the equivalent of "Joe, the chosen one". Now, would he have a tattoo of it? On a tangential note, how can a supposed Xtian (like James) have that tattoo without realizing how blasphemous it is?

As to whether he existed as a historical figure, I have no idea. There isnt particularly strong evidence that he did, as almost all accounts are at least decades after his death and from different regions of the ancient Mediterranean world.
also, almost all "relics" that have been examined (shroud of turin for example) are from much later time periods.

Now, it wouldnt be expected that any material culture attributable to a common man would have survived, but if he was really regarded as the messiah by thousands of people, it seems likely that at least some component of his life might have been saved and cherished.

boozehound

08-12-2010, 12:06 PM

uhh what?
there are plenty of legit sources showing that almost all aspects of Xtianity are drawn from pagan rituals and beliefs. This is commonly done by new religions (or missionizing religions). See the syncretic Xtian religions among Native Americans in mexico or Santaria in Haiti or Condemble in brazil for more recent examples.

Poodle

08-12-2010, 01:54 PM

i think Jesus existed but people were stupid in those days, and the rumor mill was probably out of control. so word of mouth spreading of his miracles and divinity probably got exaggerated and more exaggerated each time it was told. who knows, his 'apostles' could've all working in collusion to make him out to be a savior for desperate people, where they were just scam artists.

i'm very doubtful the Bible accurately portrays him tho.

shlver

08-12-2010, 02:32 PM

Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery. No contemporary sources exist mentioning a man who, in front of large crowds, raised the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, gave sight to the blind, etc. No birth certificate, no tax records, no address, no death certificate... even though Romans took many census records and heavily taxed their territories. Jesus' birth supposedly drew the interest of Eastern Kings and instigated the slaughter of an entire generation of Jewish children... but there's no evidence ANYWHERE that this happened. Tacitus was born 20+ years after Jesus was supposed to have died (c. 33 CE) and is not a contemporary source, not that it matters since...
Proven? You're getting a little head of yourself. There's a consensus amongst Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage is authentic.
You're saying a couple generations make the manuscripts disposable which is idiotic.

Again, I will need more concrete evidence. Since no one has been able to produce non biblical accounts of Jesus' miracle birth (even though the differing biblical accounts contradict eachother) Show me evidence of the slaughter of innocents by Herod during Jesus' birth that's found in Matthew. That shouldn't be too hard to find, you'd think someone would have recorded the event- a well known tyrant systematically murdering Jewish children all over Judea...
Huh? It was in the village of Bethlehem. Herod was a blood thirsty king that murdered his own family, and executed many people. Killing babies in a small village is not going to draw attention of the whole Roman World.

i think Jesus existed but people were stupid in those days, and the rumor mill was probably out of control. so word of mouth spreading of his miracles and divinity probably got exaggerated and more exaggerated each time it was told. who knows, his 'apostles' could've all working in collusion to make him out to be a savior for desperate people, where they were just scam artists.

i'm very doubtful the Bible accurately portrays him tho.
Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?

shlver

08-12-2010, 02:39 PM

No, Jesus as a historical figure is fictional as well.
Huh? Prove it.

-playmaker-

08-12-2010, 02:47 PM

They got the name from the same place they got the name Hercules, or Zeus, or Mithra, or Santa Claus. The only difference is that Yeshua was a common name for Jewish males during the second period, so it would be like us getting together to write a script about a boxer and blatantly plagiarizing Rocky but changing the main character's name to something generic/common like James.

What don't you understand about 'Christ' not being a name, but a title? I broke this down in the simplest terms for you. Chirst=Khristos=the annointed one. The title didn't originate with Yeshua, I even showed you an example of a deity with the title 'Christus/Christ' who predates Jesus by a few centuries. Hell, even in the OT, Cyrus, who ended the Babylonian captivity, is called God's annointed one in Isaiah. Cyrus, who wasn't even a Jew, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was bestowed the TITLE.

So Cyrus, King of Persia, was the Christ centuries before Jesus.

What are you not understanding about this?
I didn't understand that the meaning of that title predates his existance. Read my reply to Raider.

I got it now though...and it is changing my thoughts on this.

beermonsteroo

08-12-2010, 02:47 PM

I certainly think there was some man we know call Jesus. I think there's enough proof for that. How many of the storeis about him are actually true and how many are only a myth is different question of course.

macmac

08-12-2010, 02:52 PM

Huh? Prove it.

It should be easier to prove an existence than to disprove one...wheres all the overwhelming evidence of a historical figure?

DonDadda59

08-12-2010, 03:20 PM

Proven? You're getting a little head of yourself. There's a consensus amongst Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage is authentic. You're saying a couple generations make the manuscripts disposable which is idiotic.

Watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0)

I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's been authenticated, most view it as having many 'interpolations'... at best.

And all I want is one contemporary mention of a man whose miracle birth drew the attention of a tyrant, the entire region's anticipation, caused 3 kings/magi from the east to travel to see him (with the blessing of the tyrant)... who in front of large crowds- raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, healed diseases, walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead. There is NOTHING that was written of him by anyone during his miraculous and extraordinary lifetime. No mention of him by Herod, even though he slaughtered an entire generation of children because of him, no mention of him by priests/religious figures of the time, none from bystanders who witnessed these miracles. No mention in censuses, tax records, birth or death records. No writings of his exist, not even a damn signature. All that we have of his supposed birth, life, death, resurrection, miracles, etc is third or fourth hand often contradictory accounts written decades or even centuries after he supposedly died.

Huh? It was in the village of Bethlehem. Herod was a blood thirsty king that murdered his own family, and executed many people. Killing babies in a small village is not going to draw attention of the whole Roman World.

Even if it was just bethlehem (even though Matthew says it was that and the surrounding areas), don't you think someone would've written an account of the systematic murder of children 2 years old and younger in a town/region? Herod's other atrocities were well-documented, but the genocide of children is nowhere to be found in the historical record? Nothing in the biographies of Herod even hint that such an event occurred, same with Luke's claim that Augustus called for an Empire-wide Census. These were all fabrications by writers trying to force their imagined deity into the historical record and the messianic 'prophecy' of the Old Testament.

Poodle

08-12-2010, 03:50 PM

Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?

who says they really died for their beliefs tho?

i'm not saying what i said happened, more just throwing that out there.

i'm just really skeptical how a lot of our ancient history is remembered and taken so literally by so many today based on the Bible or any other book. Even recent history from 3-10 years ago is reinvented and twisted by people with agendas, and actually out there for people to believe, of which a lot of people do.

shlver

08-12-2010, 05:31 PM

It should be easier to prove an existence than to disprove one...wheres all the overwhelming evidence of a historical figure?
:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

Watch

I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's been authenticated, most view it as having many 'interpolations'... at best.

And all I want is one contemporary mention of a man whose miracle birth drew the attention of a tyrant, the entire region's anticipation, caused 3 kings/magi from the east to travel to see him (with the blessing of the tyrant)... who in front of large crowds- raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, healed diseases, walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead. There is NOTHING that was written of him by anyone during his miraculous and extraordinary lifetime. No mention of him by Herod, even though he slaughtered an entire generation of children because of him, no mention of him by priests/religious figures of the time, none from bystanders who witnessed these miracles. No mention in censuses, tax records, birth or death records. No writings of his exist, not even a damn signature. All that we have of his supposed birth, life, death, resurrection, miracles, etc is third or fourth hand often contradictory accounts written decades or even centuries after he supposedly died.
Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.

who says they really died for their beliefs tho?

i'm not saying what i said happened, more just throwing that out there.

i'm just really skeptical how a lot of our ancient history is remembered and taken so literally by so many today based on the Bible or any other book. Even recent history from 3-10 years ago is reinvented and twisted by people with agendas, and actually out there for people to believe, of which a lot of people do.
huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."

Timmy D for MVP

08-12-2010, 05:43 PM

Yeah I think the historical evidence is out there and most things mentioned in the Bible are based on some sort fact and then twisted and sensationalized.

Now I can't say that I believe everything is based on just one man, instead of maybe being a collection of different personalities put into one mythos.

hookul

08-12-2010, 05:59 PM

:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.

huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."

huh? There have been millions of people in history who died based on false belief, scam, pride, etc. People do not need a lot of extra motivation to kill or die for a myth, a cam, etc, whatever you might call it. Are you so out of touch with history and the human mind that you cannot understand how hearsay, second-hand story and wishful thinking could turn a potential simple but wise men into a messiah in the eyes of people hoping for just such a messiah to free them from their suppressors? All people need in these situation is the idea of hope for them to die for this hope - it rarely matters if this is in the end true hope in person or belief.

shlver

08-12-2010, 06:01 PM

huh? There have been millions of people in history who died based on false belief, scam, pride, etc. People do not need a lot of extra motivation to kill or die for a myth, a cam, etc, whatever you might call it. Are you so out of touch with history and the human mind that you cannot understand how hearsay, second-hand story and wishful thinking could turn a potential simple but wise men into a messiah in the eyes of people hoping for just such a messiah to free them from their suppressors? All people need in these situation is the idea of hope for them to die for this hope - it rarely matters if this is in the end true hope in person or belief.
Lacking reading comprehension huh? He said those Apostles were in on the scam. They knew Jesus was a fake and still died for him?:facepalm

hookul

08-12-2010, 06:07 PM

Lacking reading comprehension huh? He said those Apostles were in on the scam. They knew Jesus was a fake and still died for him?:facepalm

Huh? what does this change? The above can be applied to the motivation apostles as well. Maybe they loved the attention they were getting, maybe they hoped for a better life by living this lie, maybe they feared they have more to loose then their lives if they reveal they were in on a scam that fooled hundreds of people? It is not farfetched for these times that loosing "ones face" is worse to a man than death itself.

I am not saying that I believe this is how it went down but i thnk it is ludicrous when giving the options between

a) a few guys hoping for a better life are in for a scam ... and
b) a few guys witnessed god in person

that people assume b) is more likely...use some logic and deductive sense for cryin gout loud. Option a) already happened thousands of times in history and probably happnes as we speak hundreds of times right now while b) - by its very definition only happened once in history!

Yeah, right but b) is the simplier and more logical explanation.

shlver

08-12-2010, 06:10 PM

Huh? what does this change? The above can be applied to the motivation apostles as well. Maybe they loved the attention they were getting, maybe they hoped for a better life by living this lie, maybe they feared they have more to loose then their lives if they reveal they were in on a scam that fooled hundreds of people? It is not farfetched for these times that loosing "ones face" is worse to a man than death itself.

I am not saying that I believe this is how it went down but i thnk it is ludicrous when giving the options between

a) a few guys hoping for a better life are in for a scam ... and
b) a few guys witnessed god in person

that people assume b) is more likely...use some logic and deductive sense for cryin gout loud. Option a) already happened thousands of times in history and probably happnes as we speak hundreds of times right now while b) - by its very definition only happened once in history!

Yeah, right but b) is the simplier and more logical explanation.
Bunch of hypothetical garbage.:blah :blah :blah

hookul

08-12-2010, 06:14 PM

Bunch of hypothetical garbage.:blah :blah :blah

Again, you are either dumb or playing dumb. How is the above scenario more hypothetical garbage than the option that they indeed witnessed all these wonders and god in person?

Option a) to the best of all our knowledge of science, laws of nature, history and the nature of man already happened many times on ears, while option b) defies laws of nature and by its own definition only happened once since time existed. In what universe is b) for you therefore less hypothetical than a) ?

There is a very simple expression that you do not seem to get your mind around :"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!". The claim of wonders and god himself revealing himself over a prolonged period of time to a selected group of peoples is pretty much the MOST EXTRAORDINARY claim one can make thus most extraordinary proof are needed to make this claim less hypothetical than claims that at least do not speak against the laws of nature and common knowledge.

shlver

08-12-2010, 06:18 PM

Again, you are either dumb or playing dumb. How is the above scenario more hypothetical garbage than the option that they indeed witnessed all these wonders and god in person?

Option a) to the best of all our knowledge of science, laws of nature, history and the nature of man already happened many times on ears, while option b) defies laws of nature and by its own definition only happened once since time existed. In what universe is b) for you therefore less hypothetical than a) ?

There is a very simple expression that you do not seem to get your mind around :"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!". The claim of wonders and god himself revealing himself over a prolonged period of time to a selected group of peoples is pretty much the MOST EXTRAORDINARY claim one can make thus most extraordinary proof are needed to make this claim less hypothetical than claims that at least do not speak against the laws of nature and common knowledge.
I didn't hypothesize anything you dolt. The apostles themselves said they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. He said that Jesus and the Apostles were in on an elaborate scheme. So, I asked for the motivation to continue something the Apostles knew was fake that would bring hardship, suffering, and maybe even death. You're pretty ****ing stupid.

hookul

08-12-2010, 06:27 PM

I didn't hypothesize anything you dolt. The apostles themselves said they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. He said that Jesus and the Apostles were in on an elaborate scheme. So, I asked for the motivation to continue something the Apostles knew was fake that would bring hardship, suffering, and maybe even death. You're pretty ****ing stupid.

Dear lord you are dumb. For one, I mentioned different kinds of motivation for them to act this way in the first place and continue to act this way even when facing suffering. Second, of course the apostles themselves would say they believed in it as this is the a priory requirement for them to be in a potential scam. How the hell would anybody pull of an elaborate scam and then go around the next second and say :"haha, but in all honesty I do not really believe this, I am just saying this to profit from a scam? How the hell would that work in real life? Basically if you could graps your mind of the idea that they might have lied, you are taking the words of the liars as justification for their true believes - do you not see a paradox in this situation?

And again, I am not saying that this scenario happened. All I am saying that giving the options, this scenario is still more likely than god walking on earth.

Shit, for all we know - and we do know nothing about them really - the apostles could have been a group of Charlie Zelenoffs truely believing in their own scam just like Charlie is disillusional about reality. Such a scenario (a bunch of Charlie Zs following a charasmatic leader) is still more likely to happen once in history than rising dead back from live. But I guess you cannot even admit this.

shlver

08-12-2010, 06:36 PM

Dear lord you are dumb. For one, I mentioned different kinds of motivation for them to act this way in the first place and continue to act this way even when facing suffering. Second, of course the apostles themselves would say they believed in it as this is the a priory requirement for them to be in a potential scam. How the hell would anybody pull of an elaborate scam and then go around the next second and say :"haha, but in all honesty I do not really believe this, I am just saying this to profit from a scam? How the hell would that work in real life? Basically if you could graps your mind of the idea that they might have lied, you are taking the words of the liars as justification for their true believes - do you not see a paradox in this situation?
That's all hypothetical bullshit you're spewing. First of all, what would they have to gain? Logically, no person will suffer or die for something they know is fake and we're talking about the motivations of scam artists.

And again, I am not saying that this scenario happened. All I am saying that giving the options, this scenario is still more likely than god walking on earth.

We're not arguing that you dolt. We're arguing whether or not the Apostles BELIEVED Jesus was the Messiah. The idea that they truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah logically follows the acts of them dying and suffering claiming belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Shit, for all we know - and we do know nothing about them really - the apostles could have been a group of Charlie Zelenoffs truely believing in their own scam just like Charlie is disillusional about reality. Such a scenario (a bunch of Charlie Zs following a charasmatic leader) is still more likely to happen once in history than rising dead back from live. But I guess you cannot even admit this.

You're still missing the point of the argument.

boozehound

08-12-2010, 06:40 PM

:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.

huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."
ok, the fact that you even use the term greco-roman as a legit cultural association for this time period shows how out of touch you are with the actual historical records.

You have yet to actually produce a single historical source from the time of jesus that mentions him. Sure, historians 40 years later mention him, but thats not direct historical evidence. I suggest you search your library and find a single source from the life of jesus that mentions him. Otherwise, you are simply arguing from your beliefs.

shlver

08-12-2010, 06:45 PM

ok, the fact that you even use the term greco-roman as a legit cultural association for this time period shows how out of touch you are with the actual historical records.
What are you talking about?:facepalm

You have yet to actually produce a single historical source from the time of jesus that mentions him. Sure, historians 40 years later mention him, but thats not direct historical evidence. I suggest you search your library and find a single source from the life of jesus that mentions him. Otherwise, you are simply arguing from your beliefs.
Well, people with adamant stances are hard to please, when the overwhelming majority of historical scholars agree Jesus was an actual living person.

PistolPete

08-12-2010, 06:55 PM

What it all comes down to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0&feature=av2e

RainierBeachPoet

08-13-2010, 12:03 AM

:wtf: and :facepalm @ 90% of the posts here...

hookul

08-13-2010, 01:36 AM

That's all hypothetical bullshit you're spewing. First of all, what would they have to gain? Logically, no person will suffer or die for something they know is fake and we're talking about the motivations of scam artists.

We're not arguing that you dolt. We're arguing whether or not the Apostles BELIEVED Jesus was the Messiah. The idea that they truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah logically follows the acts of them dying and suffering claiming belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

You're still missing the point of the argument.

I spell it out one more time for you since you fail to read what has been posted:

What would they have to gain?
- To be in the original scam: prestige, influence, admirers, better life, etc.
- To hold onto this scam even when faced with suffering/death: losing their face, angry mob killing them anyway when finding out they toyed with their lifes and believes for years and exploited them, willing to become a martyr, nothing left to lose, etc.
Take your pick from the above if you want but don't tell me NONE of these reasons are 100% impossible. If you accept that one of those reasons might be highly unlikely but still 0.0000001% likely/possible, this likelihood still exceed the alternative explanation that god revealed himself to them for years and years in person.

Apostles believed Jesus to be the messiah:
The only account and evidence you have that they truely believed Jesus to be their messiah are their actions and own words back then in a way. Exactly ALL of their actions and words that make you believe that they believed can also be explained by the scam explanation. Again, how can you differentiate between an apostle who truely believed in Jesus or who acted and said he believed in Jesus because of a scam based on his words and actions? You simply cannot as the very nature of a scam requires the apostles to play their part and let everyone believe that they believed...GET IT?

you're still missing the point of the argument:
No. But I am now realizing that I am argueing with a person inept of logical argueing and playing back and forth with hypothetical scenarios and sociological concepts. You

Sarcastic

08-13-2010, 02:07 AM

:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

No they don't.

LA_Showtime

08-13-2010, 02:37 AM

I believe in Jesus Christ, but I'm not the type of guy to go ape shit if someone expresses their own opinion. I've thought about it, and one of the only reasons I believe it is because I wouldn't know what the **** to do if I didn't believe it. I'm hoping that I die and go to heaven. If I didn't believe in God then what the **** would happen to me?

Sarcastic

08-13-2010, 02:59 AM

-playmaker-

08-13-2010, 03:06 AM

That shouldn't be your reason for believing in God. If you truly believe in him, you should do it out of faith, not fear.
there is no right or wrong in why someone chooses to believe in a certain religion...that is their business...

Sarcastic

08-13-2010, 03:08 AM

there is no right or wrong in why someone chooses to believe in a certain religion...that is their business...

Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.

-playmaker-

08-13-2010, 03:17 AM

Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.
he just said he didn't know what he would do without God in his life...

that is understandable to me...

I am a thiest and still scared of the unknown...I think most people are scared of death...some might not be, but most are...we are scared of the unkown, or just straight scared of never existing again...

without that fear, we would all just kill ourselves now...

that is a healthy fear to have...

raiderfan19

08-13-2010, 03:19 AM

-playmaker-

08-13-2010, 03:26 AM

I havent actually commented on this thread in terms of what the OP wanted. The fact is there is a suprising amount of ignorance among Christians regarding the history of our own faith. There are 4 common non Christian sources which are used to "prove" the historical existence of Christ. Those 4 sources are Josephus, Tacitus(both of these have already been mentioned), Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius. There is also a later Roman named Lucian who is also sometimes mentioned in these debates.

As for the disbelief in those sources, it has already been mentioned that almost all ancient figures have at least as much ambiguity regarding their origins as Jesus did. I don't believe that any of these histories are strong enough to provide incontravertible proof; however, that could be said of nearly any historical figure over 2000 years old. If you choose to believe that Jesus was the teacher of the Essenes I have no real problem with that. There are many cases of varying histories referring to the same person by different names.

Again Im not trying to get into a relgious debate regarding my beliefs versus others because I believe everyone has the right to believe what they wish. I am simply trying to answer the OPs question.
from the reading I have done on this subject (which is very little I admitt) it seems as though there will lnever be actual "proof" one way or another...

those in here claiming that they know he didn't actually exist make me...:rolleyes:

I don't think there is a for sure answer on this one way or another...

In the OP, I was basically just asking what people's opinions are...I asked if you had to "guess" on wether or not he existed what would you guess?

obviously those of faith think he did, but I was curious what all the non-religious types would say on this...

raiderfan19

08-13-2010, 03:41 AM

from the reading I have done on this subject (which is very little I admitt) it seems as though there will lnever be actual "proof" one way or another...

those in here claiming that they know he didn't actually exist make me...:rolleyes:

I don't think there is a for sure answer on this one way or another...

In the OP, I was basically just asking what people's opinions are...I asked if you had to "guess" on wether or not he existed what would you guess?

obviously those of faith think he did, but I was curious what all the non-religious types would say on this...
If it wasnt clear, the reason I put the qoutes around prove was that obviously they don't actually prove anything.

O.J A 6'4Mamba

08-13-2010, 03:46 AM

Jesus of Nazareth was black man that was the son of god, the white romans couldn't take it so they killed him. The white man has been killing our black leaders since the beginning of time.
See 80% of the people in this thread in hell, while i'll be upstairs sleeping with lions.

ME>YOU

LA_Showtime

08-13-2010, 03:58 AM

That shouldn't be your reason for believing in God. If you truly believe in him, you should do it out of faith, not fear.

That's obviously not the only reason I believe in God; there are many reasons to believe in a higher being. With that said, one of the main reasons is for the simple fact that I feel like I have to believe in something. I mean seriously, how was everything created? What happens when you die? What's hell like? It's a crazy thing to think about, really. It's the type of thing that could potentially drive you nuts.

Swaggin916

08-13-2010, 04:19 AM

Jesus Christ as he is portrayed... there is nothing real about him. He would been an arab looking guy.

As for there being a dude named Christ... yea I bet the was a dude named Jesus and dude named Christ and they just fused them to form one awesome name.

SinJackal

08-13-2010, 05:40 AM

Just curious, do you think that there really was a man named Jesus Christ that was crucified for claiming to be the son of God?

I don't think there is proof one way or another...but what is your guess?

do you think he was just completely made up out of the blue, or was he a real man?

found this in wiki:

Jesus as a historical person

Jesus as myth

I am leaning toward real...as opposed to a "myth"...

I'm going to give you the most accurate reply I can, without worrying about offending people. So anyone who would be offended at any negative speakings about Jesus, please do not read further, since it's not my intention to offend people. You can believe in what you want, don't let what other people say bother you.

He's actually a historical figure. But that doesn't mean he's the son of god. That was obviously bs. Same with the Prophet Mohammed. They just come up with some ideal and lie about themselves for rep so it can be spread.

There were even trials back then to prove that he was a fraud, but Jesus' followers had paid people off to lie and claim miracles. For example, when Jesus "healed the blind man so he could see again", he was brought to court later when the Jews were trying to uncover Jesus as a fraud. They brought in the "blind man since birth's" parents, and they, under oath, stated that he wasn't blind.

These are things you don't hear about much. Now, that may not be 100% true, but it was part of a play that was run a very very long time ago, shortly after the fact. As any true historian knows, old time plays are fairly accurate portrayals of things that have gone in in those times. The specific names aren't always the same, but the things that happen within them hint at events that actually took place.

---below here, is my opinion---

Even before I found that out, I had the same idea he was nothing more than a fraud anyway. It's obvious that religion was used to control the basic mentality of the people and to almost scare people into doing what they say. It is also very well documented that priests, bishops, and any church staff in general were extremely corrupt, constantly abusing their standing for their own benefit. It's hard to put faith into anything they claim as it is.

Every religion also makes similar claims. If you follow our religion, when you die you go to our heaven. If you don't follow our religion, you go to our hell. If every religion makes this claim, exactly how are logical people supposed to take any of it seriously?

DonDadda59

08-13-2010, 11:39 AM

What it all comes down to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0&feature=av2e

The question posed by Prime isn't one of faith. He's not asking if you believe Jesus was the son of God, the messiah, etc. He wants to know whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. It is a question of facts, not faith.

I just find it strange that there is so very little tangible historical record of such an extraordinary person/deity who affected his region unlike anyone before or after him. Just a handful of 'interpolations' and pagan myth.

Strangely enough, if you tried to prove the historicity of much lesser figures you can do it easily. Let's take another messiah claimant who live about 100 years after Jesus supposedly died and try to see what proof there is that he lived.

Shimon Bar Kokhba (Simon Ben Kosiba)

Shimon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎, also transliterated as Bar Kochba) was the Jewish leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state of Israel which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("Ruler"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 following a two-year war.

Documents discovered in the modern era give us his original name, Simon ben Kosiba, (Hebrew: שמעון בן כוסבא‎) he was given the surname Bar Kokhba, (Aramaic for "Son of a Star", referring to the Star Prophecy of Numbers 24:17, "A star has shot off Jacob") by his contemporary, the Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva.

After the failure of the revolt, the rabbinical writers referred to bar Kokhba as "Simon bar Kozeba" (Hebrew: בר כוזיבא‎, "Son of lies" or "Son of deception").

-Wiki

Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: 'Aqiba, my master, used to interpret a star goes forth from Jacob as a Kozeba goes forth from Jacob.' Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Ben Kozeba, said: 'This is the King Messiah.' Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: 'Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!'

-Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5

According to the Christian church historian Eusebius (c.260-c.340), Simon claimed to be a luminary who had come down to the Jews from heaven (History of the church 4.6.2). On some of his coins and in his letters, he calls himself 'Prince' (Nasi), a word that had very strong messianic connotations (cf. Ezekiel 37.24-25 and several Qumran documents). His loyal followers liked to make a pun on his name: his real name was Simon ben Kosiba, but he was usually called Bar Kochba (son of the star), which again is a messianic claim.

...

The revolt was clearly religious in nature. The rebels were convinced that this was the apocalyptic war that had been predicted by prophets like Daniel and Zechariah. Their coins show a star on top of and the Ark of the Covenant inside the Temple; the legend is written in archaic Hebrew letters. Some coins were struck with the legend 'Eleazar the priest', which strongly suggests that a new high priest was elected.

In addition to being mention in several religious books, Simon and details of his life are found in MANY writings by historians, many of whom were alive during the same period as Ben Kosiba....

Some Sources: 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 38.3; Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a-58b; Genesis Rabbah 65.21 (on 27.22); Lamentations Rabbah 1.16

shlver

08-13-2010, 12:34 PM

I spell it out one more time for you since you fail to read what has been posted:

What would they have to gain?
- To be in the original scam: prestige, influence, admirers, better life, etc.
- To hold onto this scam even when faced with suffering/death: losing their face, angry mob killing them anyway when finding out they toyed with their lifes and believes for years and exploited them, willing to become a martyr, nothing left to lose, etc.
Take your pick from the above if you want but don't tell me NONE of these reasons are 100% impossible. If you accept that one of those reasons might be highly unlikely but still 0.0000001% likely/possible, this likelihood still exceed the alternative explanation that god revealed himself to them for years and years in person.
More hypothetical nonsense. All we know is that they died claiming belief in Jesus. and it's is completely logical for us to think that they believed Jesus was the Messiah. Regarding the bolded, that is not what the explanation is you dolt. The alternate explanation is that they believed(which is completely possible, more possible than your idiotic scam hypothesis), not whether or not God appeared to them. :wtf: There are a bunch of cults who believe more crazier stuff than this and there millions and millions of Jews all over the world who will believe in a Messiah that fulfills their satisfaction and prophecies.

Apostles believed Jesus to be the messiah:
The only account and evidence you have that they truely believed Jesus to be their messiah are their actions and own words back then in a way. Exactly ALL of their actions and words that make you believe that they believed can also be explained by the scam explanation. Again, how can you differentiate between an apostle who truely believed in Jesus or who acted and said he believed in Jesus because of a scam based on his words and actions? You simply cannot as the very nature of a scam requires the apostles to play their part and let everyone believe that they believed...GET IT?

But the scam explanation is not logical in any sort of way.:facepalm
[QUOTE]you're still missing the point of the argument:
No. But I am now realizing that I am argueing with a person inept of logical argueing and playing back and forth with hypothetical scenarios and sociological concepts. You

shlver

08-13-2010, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The question posed by Prime isn't one of faith. He's not asking if you believe Jesus was the son of God, the messiah, etc. He wants to know whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. It is a question of facts, not faith.

I just find it strange that there is so very little tangible historical record of such an extraordinary person/deity who affected his region unlike anyone before or after him. Just a handful of 'interpolations' and pagan myth.

Strangely enough, if you tried to prove the historicity of much lesser figures you can do it easily. Let's take another messiah claimant who live about 100 years after Jesus supposedly died and try to see what proof there is that he lived.

Shimon Bar Kokhba (Simon Ben Kosiba)

In addition to being mention in several religious books, Simon and details of his life are found in MANY writings by historians, many of whom were alive during the same period as Ben Kosiba....

Some Sources: 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 38.3; Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a-58b; Genesis Rabbah 65.21 (on 27.22); Lamentations Rabbah 1.16

DonDadda59

08-13-2010, 06:24 PM

I like how you say some sources where the site you copied that from says just those sources.
Provide more please.

:oldlol: You are really clutching at straws now, huh?

So mentions of Simon's life and deeds in religious and historical records (including contemporary ones), legal documents and letters from his own hand, and archeological evidence like coins he minted with his seal/title, etc is not good enough for you?

Ok.

D. Ussishkin, Archaeological Soundings at Betar, Bar-Kochba's Last Stronghold

^Betar is important because it was according to Bar-Kokhba in his letters, the Talmud, the Mishra, Eusebius, and Roman Historical record- the final stronghold during the rebellion. Ussishkin's excavation proved that Betar had been settled in the time in question and was heavily fortified against attack and military stockpiles dating to the time of the revolt were found.

Also, there are many modern scholars who have made a link between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba revolt.

So, that's just some more.

Show me anything concrete and contemporary about Jesus/Yeshua that even remotely suggests he lived in Judea from c.6 BCE to c. 33 CE or whenever he was alleged to have lived, taught, proclaimed Messiah, died... Simon Kokhba has several indications of his historicity, and I bet most if not all of the people in this thread have never heard of him... but the savior of the world left no record of his life, teachings, or death? No one recorded his miracles while he was alive?

Show me one example.

My question to you is, if the historical evidence for the historical Jesus is enough for the majority of historical scholars, why isn't it enough for you?

Because I ask for more than bullshit stories written, suppressed and canonized centuries after someone supposedly lived, performed miracles, died and was resurrected leaving no historical trace. And there have been PLENTY historical scholars who have written volumes of works questioning the historicity of Yeshua ben Yosef.

But please, feel free to show me Yeshua's writings, any legal documents pertaining to him, birth certificate, death certificate, Luke says Caesar Augustus ordered an Empire-wide census (bullshit btw)... is there evidence of this? Where is Mary, Joseph, and Jesus' census information? Luke also says:

11Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. 12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. 13When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry."
14Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" 15The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.
16They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people." 17This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea[a] and the surrounding country.
-LUKE 7

^So this news of a miraculous resurrection spread throughout the region... but no one thought to write it down? Seems strange in a time where meticulous records were kept, no?

There is NOTHING from the time that this God was walking on Earth performing miracles that says he actually existed anywhere but in the plagiarized imaginings of the New Testament writers.

Of course, this is your opportunity to prove me wrong :violin:

DonDadda59

08-15-2010, 06:37 PM

2+ days and still no evidence? Maybe there will be another miracle on the third day...

But while we're waiting for that, maybe someone can answer a serious logistical flaw within the New Testament narrative of Jesus' miracle birth:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[c] was to be born.

-Matthew 2

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, Joseph took his family and fled to Egypt and waited until an angel of the lord told them it was safe to go back to Judea- which happened once Herod died.

Herod reigned from 37 BCE to 4 BCE.

[B]In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

-Luke 2

So if we're looking for any sort of tangible proof that Jesus existed, Luke gives us a great starting point to look. Jesus, according to him, was born in Bethlehem after Joseph and Mary went there to register for the census of Quirinius on the orders of Augustus who called for a census of the entire Roman Empire. Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that's where his ancestor David (about 27-28 generations removed from Joseph according to Matthew) was from. Just another example of the NT writers going to great lengths to make Jesus the messiah of the OT :rolleyes:

Anyway, let's look at some problems posed by the 2 accounts...

The "Census of Quirinius" refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes taken in 6/7CE during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of direct Roman rule on what became Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea).[1] An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus,[2] who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.

...

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6 CE, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, ten years earlier.[14] In addition, no historical sources mention a worldwide or even a Roman-controlled world census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only;[15] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

So basically, the infallible word of God tells us two completely different birth dates, a decade apart, for his son/self, the messiah, and outright makes shit up that didn't happen. So the writers of the Gospel can't get their story straight and contradict one another AND history... so what reason is there to believe that anything in Luke, Matthew, or the New Testament should be taken as truth? :confusedshrug:

Nanners

08-17-2010, 10:12 AM

Interesting article titled "The Sad State of Religion in the U.S."

“There’s no longer evidence for a need of God, even less of Christ. The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying.”

It matters who said this. If it came from Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens – the Four Horsemen of the New Apocalypse – few would accept it as an objective assessment. But the author of this quote was Pope Benedict XVI.[1]

The Pope’s candor fits well with other research sponsored by churches. When you count the people in the pews on Sunday rather than having a pollster ask whether or not they attend church, fewer than 18% attend church regularly.[2]

From 1980 to 2005 in the Southern Baptist Church, baptisms of people between eighteen and thirty four – in other words, their next generation of leaders – fell 40 percent, from 100,000 in 1980 to 60,000 in 2005.[3]

But the U.S. population grew by 27% during those 25 years, so the Baptists would have had to baptize 127,000 in 2005 just to stay even; they really fell by 52%.[4]

In 2006, the Southern Baptists – who claim almost six times more members than any other white evangelical church – made a concerted effort to baptize one million people. Not only did they fall over two-thirds short, they actually baptized even fewer than they had the year before.[5]

You might think that some faith group must have grown during the last thirty years, and you’d be right: atheists and nonbelievers more than doubled in the eleven years between 1990 and 2001, from 14 million to 29 million: from 8% of the country to 14%. There are more than twice as many atheists and nonbelievers as there are evangelical Christians.[6]

And since it’s hard to believe that all atheists/nonbelievers would be willing to confess that to pollsters, the number is probably much higher. From 2000 to 2005, church attendance fell in all fifty states.[7]

Nor is this trend a new phenomenon: American churches have not kept up with population growth in over a century.[8]

Then, to add insult to injury, when a sampling of non-Christians were asked to rate eleven groups in terms of respect, they rated evangelicals tenth. Only prostitutes ranked lower.[9]

Are believers more moral? No. When pollster George Barna – himself an evangelical – looked at seventy moral behaviors, he didn’t find any difference between the actions of those who were born-again Christians and those who weren’t. His studies and other indicators show that divorce among born-agains is as common as, or more common than, among other groups. One study showed that wives in traditional, male-dominated marriages were three times more likely to be beaten than wives in egalitarian marriages.[10]

Evangelicals constitute not 25 percent of the U.S. population – as they have claimed – but at most 7 percent, and their numbers are falling, not rising. All these numbers come from the churches themselves. (Wicker, p. 67) While evangelical women make up at least 3.5% of the population (half of 7%), they make up about 20% of the women who get abortions.[11]

“The Spirit,” as the Gospel of John says, “blows where it will.” Where is it blowing now? Adding together the data from pollsters, evangelical researchers and Pope Benedict XVI, it’s not a stretch to say the Spirit – the spirit of life and the truth that can make you more free – has settled in the land of atheists, nonbelievers, and church alumni.

http://inewp.com/?p=4679

I thought the last three paragraphs were particularly interesting.

Legend of Josh

08-17-2010, 10:34 AM

Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.

It is healthy for a man's soul, to believe in God out of fear; fear of his power, and fear of his almighty abilities. Belief from faith is expected as well, and when it comes to a belief system in such a magnificent being, faith must be part of the equation; but that doesn't exclude other reasons for belief as well (such as fear, emotion, hope, life experiences, etc).

Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

zizozain

08-17-2010, 11:00 AM

What does the Qur'an say about Jesus?

In the Qur'an, there are many stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic). The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, the miracles he performed by God's permission, and his life as a respected prophet of God. The Qur'an also repeatedly reminds that Jesus was a human prophet sent by God, not part of God Himself. Below are some direct quotations from the Qur'an regarding his life and teachings of Jesus.

He Was Righteous
"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).

He Was a Prophet
"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).
"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35).

He Was a Humble Servant of God
"And behold! God will say [i.e. on the Day of Judgment]: 'Oh Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden. Never did I say to them anything except what You commanded me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I lived among them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things'" (5:116-117).

His Teachings
"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.' But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement. So woe to the wrongdoers, from the penalty of a Grievous Day!" (43:63-65)

====================================

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam

Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator

miller-time

08-17-2010, 07:23 PM

It is healthy for a man's soul, to believe in God out of fear; fear of his power, and fear of his almighty abilities. Belief from faith is expected as well, and when it comes to a belief system in such a magnificent being, faith must be part of the equation; but that doesn't exclude other reasons for belief as well (such as fear, emotion, hope, life experiences, etc).

Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

i'm not sure if i follow? how can you fear gods power if you don't already believe in it? you can't fear gods power first and then believe because you've already accepted that god exists and has power in the first instance. but maybe i am just misunderstanding you?

DonDadda59

08-18-2010, 11:09 PM

Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator

Interesting.

What's this belief about Isa (Jesus/Yeshua) based on exactly? Seems like they kept the basic story of the Pauline Christians but tweaked it just so he wasn't the Son of God or God himself. Kept the virgin birth, Mary, even the second coming.

-playmaker-

08-18-2010, 11:50 PM

i'm not sure if i follow? how can you fear gods power if you don't already believe in it? you can't fear gods power first and then believe because you've already accepted that god exists and has power in the first instance. but maybe i am just misunderstanding you?
I think he is just saying it is healthy to be a "god-fearing" person...

and he is right...it is very healthy to fear God...

fear of God has saved countless lives...for alot of people it might be the only thing that keeps them from killing themselves...because life is a gift in the eye's of God in every religion, to deny that gift is a "no-no"...

Fear of God also has gotten countless of people off drugs and alcohol...

real or not, God saves lives...(yes I know "God" has also taken lives, but I believe "he" has saved many more lives than taken)

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 12:07 AM

I don't fear God(assuming there is a God). Does this make me unhealthy?
no...

BUT, you would "LIKELY" have a better mind set if you did fear God...

likely less depressed...or happier if you are not depressed...(on average)

people who fear God (in general) are usually more content in life, more humble...ect...when times get tuff they have God to fall back on, and real or not he is there for them and does help...

Jailblazers7

08-19-2010, 12:11 AM

I think he is just saying it is healthy to be a "god-fearing" person...

and he is right...it is very healthy to fear God...

fear of God has saved countless lives...for alot of people it might be the only thing that keeps them from killing themselves...because life is a gift in the eye's of God in every religion, to deny that gift is a "no-no"...

Fear of God also has gotten countless of people off drugs and alcohol...

real or not, God saves lives...(yes I know "God" has also taken lives, but I believe "he" has saved many more lives than taken)

I think it would be healthier if people changed their lives for the better for the better reasons (benefit their own health/sanity, their family's well-being, etc.)

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 12:18 AM

I think it would be healthier if people changed their lives for the better for the better reasons (benefit their own health/sanity, their family's well-being, etc.)
some do...but alot for alot of people it takes "God" to get them to go the extra step...

It has also been shown that athiests are much more likely to committ suicide than the religious...and part of that is the fear of God keeping them going...

fearing God is healthy in general...I have talked about this before many times but it is healthy to the point that alot of mental doctors use it on their patients..."God" is the entire foundation of "AA"...if you ever go to a drug rehab you will also see the doctors there talking alot about God...

I am not saying you can't be mentally healthy and athiest btw...there are plenty of athiests that happy, healthy, ect...

just talking "in genral"

Jailblazers7

08-19-2010, 12:23 AM

some do...but alot for alot of people it takes "God" to get them to go the extra step...

It has also been shown that athiests are much more likely to committ suicide than the religious...and part of that is the fear of God keeping them going...

fearing God is healthy in general...I have talked about this before many times but it is healthy to the point that alot of mental doctors use it on their patients..."God" is the entire foundation of "AA"...if you ever go to a drug rehab you will also see the doctors there talking alot about God...

I am not saying you can't be mentally healthy and athiest btw...there are plenty of athiests that happy, healthy, ect...

just talking "in genral"

I actually got out of a series of alcohol related classes (serving a sentence for underage drinking) and have seen my brother go through AA and I know what you mean by God being a centerpiece in recovery.

It just kind of confuses me how the idea of something (not a real person or loved one) is what gets people to take that extra step.

miller-time

08-19-2010, 12:25 AM

I think he is just saying it is healthy to be a "god-fearing" person...

and he is right...it is very healthy to fear God...

fear of God has saved countless lives...for alot of people it might be the only thing that keeps them from killing themselves...because life is a gift in the eye's of God in every religion, to deny that gift is a "no-no"...

Fear of God also has gotten countless of people off drugs and alcohol...

real or not, God saves lives...(yes I know "God" has also taken lives, but I believe "he" has saved many more lives than taken)

it is better to fix the problem at the source then to slap on a god bandaid.

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 12:41 AM

it is better to fix the problem at the source then to slap on a god bandaid.
but that is fixing it at the source (depending what yo uare talking about)

bandaid = lots of pills

fixing it "the real way" = exercise/healthy diet/spirituality

if we are just talking about depression and other mental issues that that are similiar...

"god" isn't a bandaid...he really can heal...prevent suicide, ect...save lives

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 12:44 AM

http://www.mybesthealthportal.net/images/stories/RX_Drugs/antidepressants.jpg

^^^ THAT is the bandaid...not "God"

Blackisbig

08-19-2010, 01:02 AM

http://www.mybesthealthportal.net/images/stories/RX_Drugs/antidepressants.jpg

^^^ THAT is the bandaid...not "God"

if we are just talking about depression and other mental issues that that are similiar...

"god" isn't a bandaid...he really can heal...prevent suicide, ect...save lives

You are kidding with this shit right? Pills are only a bandaid for depression and mental issues whereas "God" can heal them? Where was "God" healing these issues a hundred years ago before the medical profession started to come to grips with the realities of mental health? Where was he when people with mental disorders were ostracized, beat up, and thrown out of their communities? Those medications in many situations have given people the means to live productive and healthy lives, and in many of those same cases, they grew up in a church setting where the "Christian Psychologist" painted the child's behavior as something that could be fixed by a mere change in the disciplinary structure of the household.

In many ways churches have been a hindrance in people finding ways to seek help with their mental problems.

miller-time

08-19-2010, 01:27 AM

but that is fixing it at the source (depending what yo uare talking about)

bandaid = lots of pills

fixing it "the real way" = exercise/healthy diet/spirituality

if we are just talking about depression and other mental issues that that are similiar...

"god" isn't a bandaid...he really can heal...prevent suicide, ect...save lives

its not fixing the problem, it is providing a false reality that the individual can escape into.

lots of pills means nothing, it depends what type of depression you have. feeling depressed is not the same as having depression. there are many different types of the disorder and obviously introducing people to god is not going to be effective for all of them. most people with (unipolar) depression are treated with cognitive behavioural therapy before they are introduced to drug treatments. In any mental health case drug treatment is usually the last resort (except for ECT and surgury obviously).

but we've had this discussion before. and my point last time was that during war sucide rates decrease. if a country got together and said lets go to war to combat suicide you wouldn't say that is fixing the problem would you? it does increase self worth and solidarity, the same things god increases, so what is the difference? by your logic they are both fixers of the problem.

obviously war is an extreme example and i don't mean to say they are equal concepts in combatting suicide and depression. but they both work on the same problems. are they fixes for the problem or bandaids?

which religion then? protestants have higher suicide rates than catholics so it might be safer to introduce them to catholicism because obviously it is better at fixing the problem. or is it bandaiding the problem, because you know... god isn't actually a real part of any of this it is just that false perception of reality i mentioned earlier. edit - if god were a real solution then shouldn't all believers have statistically the same rates of suicide? they don't so the problem is obviously psychosocial, and the psychosocial cause is what needs to be fixed not painted over with a belief in god.

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 02:56 AM

I am going to try and answer you both with one short post. First off I am not against meds or "bandaids" aas long as patients and doctors are not abusing them.

"IF" God is a "baidaid" (I don't think it is at all since it has cured many for good) then I don't see the problem with using a "god band-aid" either...it certainly isn't hurting anyone like pills would...what's the issue???...they believe in something that YOU think is flase???...WHO CARES!!!

and yes, "thiests" have an much lower suicide rate than "athiests"...so it is healthy in that realm of "mood/depression/ect"...

ABSTRACT:

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim's social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

^^^ READ UP

its not fixing the problem, it is providing a false reality that the individual can escape into.

^^^ that IS fixing the problem...:hammerhead:

wether or not it is false DOES NOT MATTER...(also can not be proven)

"DEPRESSION" in general is a false sense of reality...as most people who are depressed really don't have a decent reason to be and are 100x better off than the common "happy" person living in Africa...or Mexico...ect...

if it can be cured with spirituality, that is NOT A BANDAID...

go ask a damn pyschiatrist...spirituality DOES HEAL MENTAL ILLNESS...(not all of them, but the ones that can be beaten such as clinical depression)

Abstract
While mental health professionals frequently express concerns about the function of spirituality and religion in the lives of people diagnosed with severe mental disorders, there are both clinical and research bases for the increased acceptance of spirituality's potentially positive role in psychiatric rehabilitation and recovery. This paper first addresses issues of religious experience in diagnosis, including the importance of religiocultural context and overall functioning in diagnostic assessments. It then examines the roles of spirituality in recovery, exploring both positive and negative relationships between religion and consumers' well-being. Finally, it describes several specific ways in which spiritual and religious concerns may be integrated into psychosocial rehabilitation services: conducting spiritual assessments; offering spiritually-informed discussion groups; incorporating spiritual dimensions of psychotherapy; and facilitating linkages to faith communities and spiritual resources.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713673802

^^^ check that out...a guide for DOCTORS TO USE SPIRTUALITY RATHER THAN PILLS!!!!

ehh...not such a short post

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 03:03 AM

You are kidding with this shit right? Pills are only a bandaid for depression and mental issues whereas "God" can heal them? Where was "God" healing these issues a hundred years ago before the medical profession started to come to grips with the realities of mental health? Where was he when people with mental disorders were ostracized, beat up, and thrown out of their communities? Those medications in many situations have given people the means to live productive and healthy lives, and in many of those same cases, they grew up in a church setting where the "Christian Psychologist" painted the child's behavior as something that could be fixed by a mere change in the disciplinary structure of the household.

In many ways churches have been a hindrance in people finding ways to seek help with their mental problems.
he was there for many of them...real or not

instead of slitting there wrists or downing jars of asprin they were scared of going to hell, or asking for God's help...and then they grew up!!!

"GOD" has helped many people get through "SHIT"...for centuries...

and it isn't a bandaid either...it is perfectly healthy way for humans to overcome things...

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 03:13 AM

lots of pills means nothing, it depends what type of depression you have. feeling depressed is not the same as having depression. there are many different types of the disorder and obviously introducing people to god is not going to be effective for all of them. most people with (unipolar) depression are treated with cognitive behavioural therapy before they are introduced to drug treatments. In any mental health case drug treatment is usually the last resort (except for ECT and surgury obviously).

that isn't true where I live...and I doubt it is true in the rest of the US also...

doctors throw out pills right away...they don't give a shit...

pills FIRST...then group theorpy and all that shit that actualy requires effort...cause people are lazy and want the "quick fix" and doctors and others just want money...

I know countless people I grew up with that are on some kind of med and never bothered to seek therapy...

hell, the whole damn country is on meds...

miller-time

08-19-2010, 05:12 AM

pills FIRST...then group theorpy and all that shit that actualy requires effort...cause people are lazy and want the "quick fix" and doctors and others just want money...

well i'm studying to become a psychologist and we can't prescribe meds, patients that suffer from psychosis or severe depression (where they need to be monitored) are defered to psychiatrists and in those cases they absolutely NEED meds, but our patients won't recieve meds of any sort (from us).

the medical model is ****ed i agree, treat the symptoms and not the problem. but you've got to stop generalizing everything. not every psychiatrist is out for a cheap buck. alot of them do care, and alot of them do help.

miller-time

08-19-2010, 05:44 AM

it certainly isn't hurting anyone like pills would...what's the issue???...they believe in something that YOU think is flase???...WHO CARES!!!
because like i said it is not fixing the problem, in the exact same way you dislike meds i dislike using god as a treatment for mental health problems. it is a distraction, you aren't getting the person to understand or manage the underlying root causes for their problems . CBT and other psychological treatments like interpersonal therapy and even psychoanalysis are statistically proven treatments for known disorders. i'm not pushing drugs unless the person is at risk of harming themselves or others.

and yes, "thiests" have an much lower suicide rate than "athiests"...so it is healthy in that realm of "mood/depression/ect"...
yes and some theists have much lower suicide rates than other theists, is the best theistic treatment the church with the lowest suicide rate?

"DEPRESSION" in general is a false sense of reality...as most people who are depressed really don't have a decent reason to be and are 100x better off than the common "happy" person living in Africa...or Mexico...ect...

if it can be cured with spirituality, that is NOT A BANDAID...
...and they probably have to continue persisting in their new found faith. what happens if they suddenly lose their spiritual beliefs and they fall back into the disorder they came from? the very definition of bandaid. if they manage to move through life after dropping their spiritual ideas and not fall back then i will concede that point. it seems fairly difficult to test that hypothesis though.

go ask a damn pyschiatrist...spirituality DOES HEAL MENTAL ILLNESS...(not all of them, but the ones that can be beaten such as clinical depression)
why would you offer them that if spirituality is quite possibly false to begin when we already have tried and tested methods to heal them? your position is if it heals them then who cares if it is real, mine is if you can use a neutral method to heal someone wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

^^^ check that out...a guide for DOCTORS TO USE SPIRTUALITY RATHER THAN PILLS!!!!
what that abstract for a journal article i have to pay 69 euros to read?

Legend of Josh

08-19-2010, 08:37 AM

I don't fear God(assuming there is a God). Does this make me unhealthy?

Assuming there is a God, not fearing God is unhealthy for your soul.

Poodle

08-19-2010, 08:41 AM

Assuming there is a God, not fearing God is unhealthy for your soul.

yeh especially considering how bad they make hell out to be...

but i'm willing to take my chances instead of believing in one fable out of so many out there. plus its difficult for some people to really believe in this type of stuff way more than others it seems, even if we really tried hard to believe.

Legend of Josh

08-19-2010, 10:27 AM

Why?

God finds favor in those who seek to understand, value and appreciate his greatness. If we truly understand and appreciate God's greatness (speaking in terms of the omnipotent, more specific Christian God), then naturally, there should be a healthy dose of fear associated as well.

Fearing God does not automatically assume we think his intentions are evil or unjust (hell for example, which opens up a whole new can of worms bc of the common misconception that God's will for us who do not follow or obey is 'evil' - different topic!); fearing God because of his power and unparalleled magnitude can also be bucketed into fear.

This type of 'God fearing' is healthy for one's spirituality. I know for me personally, it took a lot of ego-bending to break the barriers that separated me from God. It's a huge turn-off for most people, but in order to get close to God, you must first humble yourself and acknowledge God > you. A healthy fear of God can help you get from point A to B.

Pslam 111:10 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.

Legend of Josh

08-19-2010, 10:53 AM

i'm willing to take my chances instead of believing...

In today's world, we idolize (practially worship) worldly things; with each passing day this becomes more and more evident. It's everywhere. It's instilled within us. It's becoming us. It is us.

Romans 1:25 - They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

Remember who's world you're living in:

2 Corinthians 4:4 - The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

boozehound

08-19-2010, 12:54 PM

wait. I thought prime claimed to not be religious, but now hes talking about god healing depression? WTF, you that almost all religious moments (catharsis, etc) can be explained through brain chemistry? Its the same as a placebo effect.

also, josh, what if shannon believes in gods (which he doesnt fear) that arent your typical judeo-Xtian fearmongering bullshit god? Can you tell him why not fearing a god he believes in is unhealthy without resorting to the bible?

Poodle

08-19-2010, 12:56 PM

In today's world, we idolize (practially worship) worldly things; with each passing day this becomes more and more evident. It's everywhere. It's instilled within us. It's becoming us. It is us.

Romans 1:25 - They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

Remember who's world you're living in:

2 Corinthians 4:4 - The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

you're going to have to bring a LOT more than that to convert me. i don't even get how any of that works on anybody tbh :confusedshrug:

it'd probably take me seeing God/Jesus physically, or seeing some miracle firsthand, to truly believe. bible verses/quotes are :blah :blah :blah to me. i don't get why you guys use that. does it ever work?

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 02:09 PM

well i'm studying to become a psychologist and we can't prescribe meds, patients that suffer from psychosis or severe depression (where they need to be monitored) are defered to psychiatrists and in those cases they absolutely NEED meds, but our patients won't recieve meds of any sort (from us).

the medical model is ****ed i agree, treat the symptoms and not the problem. but you've got to stop generalizing everything. not every psychiatrist is out for a cheap buck. alot of them do care, and alot of them do help.
how in the f*ck can you NOT know what I am saying to be true then?

:wtf:

to "CURE" (as in gone for good) mental depression without meds...

1. Exercise
2. Healthy Diet
3. HAVE A HEALTHY SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING (religious or not)

that shit should be common knowledge for you...what are you learning about instead?...prozac and shit?...:facepalm

dude, go to any rehab clinic (for depression or drugs) and look at what the doctors (psychologist) are teaching them...they are teaching them that exercise and diet is the #1 thing but after that you have to "FIND GOD"....and that could be anything...

I am talking about the basic fundamentals of curing depression...

you would be SHOCKED at what exercise/diet/spirtuality can heal...it can heal shit considered uncureable like schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder...that shit goes a very long way in terms of Mental Health

I am actually pissed off right now that I am talking to someone that is studying to become a psychologist and has f*cking rejected a healthy spirtual well being as a form of treatment...

not only have you rejected it...but somehow you have found a way to say it is unhealthy...:banghead:

f*ck our schools...seriously

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 02:17 PM

because like i said it is not fixing the problem, in the exact same way you dislike meds i dislike using god as a treatment for mental health problems. it is a distraction, you aren't getting the person to understand or manage the underlying root causes for their problems . CBT and other psychological treatments like interpersonal therapy and even psychoanalysis are statistically proven treatments for known disorders. i'm not pushing drugs unless the person is at risk of harming themselves or others.

yes and some theists have much lower suicide rates than other theists, is the best theistic treatment the church with the lowest suicide rate?

...and they probably have to continue persisting in their new found faith. what happens if they suddenly lose their spiritual beliefs and they fall back into the disorder they came from? the very definition of bandaid. if they manage to move through life after dropping their spiritual ideas and not fall back then i will concede that point. it seems fairly difficult to test that hypothesis though.

why would you offer them that if spirituality is quite possibly false to begin when we already have tried and tested methods to heal them? your position is if it heals them then who cares if it is real, mine is if you can use a neutral method to heal someone wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

what that abstract for a journal article i have to pay 69 euros to read?
the ultimate goal is making them happy...

I mean, what are YOU as a doctor going to tell the Christian man who is seeking Christ for help and finding happiness...becoming less depressed without meds?

"oh don't bother with the Bible, it is all BS, it won't help you at all...you are just tricking yourself into being happy and not really fixing anything because Jesus never really existed...let's talk about your mother now"

would that be your advice?

it should be..."KEEP GOING TO CHURCH, APPARENTLY IT IS WORKING FOR YOU!!!...IF THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY THEN MORE POWER TO YOU!!!"

Legend of Josh

08-19-2010, 03:14 PM

also, josh, what if shannon believes in gods (which he doesnt fear) that arent your typical judeo-Xtian fearmongering bullshit god? Can you tell him why not fearing a god he believes in is unhealthy without resorting to the bible?

If ShannonElements believes in gods that are not the Christian God, then my opinion would be moot b/c I'm referring to fearing that God as being healthy for the soul. If you fear 'other' gods and it humbles you into being a better less selfish person, great - that's healthy in a sense! ... but it's ultimately moot as well b/c you're following the wrong God(s).

Having said that, let's not go off make this into a 'fact VS opinion' discussion (in regards to my statement of 'following the wrong god). I was just giving you a response.

DonDadda59

08-19-2010, 03:28 PM

If ShannonElements believes in gods that are not the Christian God, then my opinion would be moot b/c I'm referring to fearing that God as being healthy for the soul. If you fear 'other' gods and it humbles you into being a better less selfish person, great - that's healthy in a sense! ... but it's ultimately moot as well b/c you're following the wrong God(s).

Having said that, let's not go off make this into a 'fact VS opinion' discussion (in regards to my statement of 'following the wrong god). I was just giving you a response.

You just opened a can of worms :oldlol:

And really now, who are you to say your imaginary friend is the 'right one' and another is 'wrong'?

Doesn't have to be based on fact (because clearly, it's not), but your opinion would suffice.

Legend of Josh

08-19-2010, 03:38 PM

you're going to have to bring a LOT more than that to convert me. i don't even get how any of that works on anybody tbh :confusedshrug:

it'd probably take me seeing God/Jesus physically, or seeing some miracle firsthand, to truly believe. bible verses/quotes are :blah :blah :blah to me. i don't get why you guys use that. does it ever work?

I'm not trying to 'convert' you. Calm down.

:oldlol:

I was just trying to provide you some insight on your 'life choice' decision (choosing to not believe).

Bible versus, quotes, scriptures or whatever are used because that's God's direct line of communication with us; through his Word. The Bible is God's word. It's concrete, universal and forever relevant. It's a life-long guidebook to spiritual success. All you have to do is open the damn thing and read it! Read it with an open mind and an open heart. Learn its teachings, then apply them into your daily life. If you do this openly, honestly and wholeheartedly, you will not be sorry. It will teach you how to truly appreciate life and everything within it.

I know, all this sounds coo-coo and as you put it :blah :blah :blah

As far back as I can remember I was in that mindset too ... but I'm telling you ... if you truly give yourself to God, believe in him, trust him and sacrifice what this world has to offer for him (which is not easy; in fact, it's superbly hard), you will not be sorry you did. It will not be for nothing.

miller-time

08-19-2010, 05:43 PM

that shit should be common knowledge for you...what are you learning about instead?...prozac and shit?...:facepalm

do i need to say it again?

COGNITIVE

BEHAVIOURAL

THERAPY

and yes i agree healthy diet and exercise play important roles in recovery.

i'm not against spirituality. i'm against making that the front runner and the most important part of helping someone take control of their lives. and the way i'm talking on here is not how i would deal with patients. each patient has different requirements and so does each condition, CBT might be useless for some patients and they may need a different approach. you've got to stop generalizing, and saying "this" fixes almost everything.

also i have to leave my personal beliefs at the door, i'm not going to disencourage (is that word?) someones beliefs. but i'm not actually going to introduce them to some new ones either. i can't be a good psychologist if i'm not culturally sensitive, but this mantra you've got "spirituality cures all" is complete nonsense. it is effective but it is not the most effective.

"oh don't bother with the Bible, it is all BS, it won't help you at all...you are just tricking yourself into being happy and not really fixing anything because Jesus never really existed...let's talk about your mother now"

would that be your advice?

so no i'm not going to tell them its all BS. i'm just not going to give them a bible and tell them to read up if they don't have religious convictions.

-playmaker-

08-19-2010, 06:37 PM

do i need to say it again?

COGNITIVE

BEHAVIOURAL

THERAPY

and yes i agree healthy diet and exercise play important roles in recovery.

i'm not against spirituality. i'm against making that the front runner and the most important part of helping someone take control of their lives. and the way i'm talking on here is not how i would deal with patients. each patient has different requirements and so does each condition, CBT might be useless for some patients and they may need a different approach. you've got to stop generalizing, and saying "this" fixes almost everything.

also i have to leave my personal beliefs at the door, i'm not going to disencourage (is that word?) someones beliefs. but i'm not actually going to introduce them to some new ones either. i can't be a good psychologist if i'm not culturally sensitive, but this mantra you've got "spirituality cures all" is complete nonsense. it is effective but it is not the most effective.

so no i'm not going to tell them its all BS. i'm just not going to give them a bible and tell them to read up if they don't have religious convictions.
you are putting alot of words in my mouth here...

1.COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY...great?...I read it..it means nothing in this in this conversation as I never said it was good or bad...I never said spirituality is the the #1 answer to anything...

2. I never said you should "hand someone a Bible"...but doctors can AND DO tell people to try to have a healthy spiritual life...they don't push any religion, they just tell you to try and have a healthy spiritual mind set...because it "CAN" help...for some people it is everything...

3. you did make it seem like you are against a healthy spiritual life...you have been this whole thread...acting as though believing in an after life is some false bandaid that just masks the real problem, when the truth is that it can "CURE" the problem completely...(not saying it always does, just saying it can)...you came off as though it hurts more than it helps or something...

If you are really not against it, then we have nothing to argue about I guess...

ROCSteady

08-19-2010, 06:41 PM

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~zcrook/08%20-%20RealJesus.jpeg

This n!gga mug shot make him look zooted and zonked. Thought they didn't have pharmaceuticals in the early parts of A.D???

DonDadda59

08-19-2010, 06:55 PM

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~zcrook/08%20-%20RealJesus.jpeg

This n!gga mug shot make him look zooted and zonked. Thought they didn't have pharmaceuticals in the early parts of A.D???

Stop It.

We all know blonde-haired, blue-eyed, pale-skinned Middle Eastern Jew Yeshua is the only way to salvation.

http://www.sacredheartterrehaute.org/jesus-heart-43%5B1%5D.jpg

And when did this thread turn into a debate about the mental health industry? I thought this was about the historicity of Jesus.

I still don't have any evidence that was contemporaneous to Jesus that would indicate he existed. Also, no one even tried to tackle my point about the New Testament writers contradicting one another and historical record about when Jesus was born to a virgin.

I demand satisfaction! :rant

ROCSteady

08-19-2010, 06:58 PM

Hahaha I'd rather pray to my Jesus than yours Don. BTW, I feel like the mental health thing is EXTREMELY relevant to matters of spirituality becuase the old science vs. spirituality are usually contradictory arenas and doctors who claim to have all the answers a lot of times will not consider a person's spiritual struggles when one feels sick in la cabeza

DonDadda59

08-19-2010, 07:10 PM

I would love to see the look on Southern Conservatives faces if Jesus does come back to Earth on Judgment Day looking like this:

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/quiz-jackson.jpg

"Time for you to repent mutha****as... I got this passage memorized, something my father wrote, you mighta heard of it- Ezekiel 25:17"

:roll:

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 09:52 PM

I still don't have any evidence that was contemporaneous to Jesus that would indicate he existed. Also, no one even tried to tackle my point about the New Testament writers contradicting one another and historical record about when Jesus was born to a virgin.

I demand satisfaction! :rant

Still no takers? :confusedshrug:

Sarcastic

08-20-2010, 10:04 PM

Still no takers? :confusedshrug:

It's a trick question. There is no evidence that Jesus existed.

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 10:12 PM

It's a trick question. There is no evidence that Jesus existed.

I know that, but there are people who disagree. I just want to know where they're coming from and to see how they try to reconcile the Good Book, the word of God telling 2 different stories about when his son/himself was born... stories that contradict historical record.

It's a simple request really. I can wait :D

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:13 PM

Still no takers? :confusedshrug:
any takers on evidence that he DIDN'T exist?

in the OP I stated that there was no proof either way...just asked for guesses, opinions...

no one knows for sure one way or another...

Sarcastic

08-20-2010, 10:19 PM

any takers on evidence that he DIDN'T exist?

in the OP I stated that there was no proof either way...just asked for guesses, opinions...

no one knows for sure one way or another...

Is there any proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:21 PM

Is there any proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
well, yes...I am pretty sure through science we could prove that never existed...

Sarcastic

08-20-2010, 10:23 PM

well, yes...I am pretty sure through science we could prove that never existed...

Oh ye of little faith.

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 10:26 PM

any takers on evidence that he DIDN'T exist?

in the OP I stated that there was no proof either way...just asked for guesses, opinions...

no one knows for sure one way or another...

Asking to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist is like asking to prove Santa Claus doesn't, it's a logical fallacy. But I think I did enough to establish reasonable doubt your honor. No archeological or historical evidence that is contemporaneous to when he was supposed to be born, lived, died, etc exists despite him being a God who walked on Earth (and water) and performed miracles that many people allegedly saw. In addition, there are contradictory stories about his birth (and life) within the New Testament, one of those accounts being in direct contradiction to historical records we have about censuses that were taken in the Roman Empire and its municipalities during the time in question.

So in summation- no physical evidence exists, no contemporary historical evidence exists and the historical references that were brought up are either non-contemporary or have many 'interpolations' (read forgeries), the accounts told by the people who originated his life story are contradictory and don't fit with historical evidence we have.

So again... evidence that he existed... please. Anything that would sway one from reasonable doubt (at least)... anything?

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:35 PM

Asking to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist is like asking to prove Santa Claus doesn't, it's a logical fallacy.
no...it isn't at all...

one is possible the other is riding around on flying rain deer...

unless you are trying to say Santa Claus was named after an actual human named Claus...which might be true I have no idea...

But I think I did enough to establish reasonable doubt your honor. No archeological or historical evidence that is contemporaneous to when he was supposed to be born, lived, died, etc exists despite him being a God who walked on Earth (and water) and performed miracles that many people allegedly saw. In addition, there are contradictory stories about his birth (and life) within the New Testament, one of those accounts being in direct contradiction to historical records we have about censuses that were taken in the Roman Empire and its municipalities during the time in question.

So in summation- no physical evidence exists, no contemporary historical evidence exists and the historical references that were brought up are either non-contemporary or have many 'interpolations' (read forgeries), the accounts told by the people who originated his life story are contradictory and don't fit with historical evidence we have.

So again... evidence that he existed... please. Anything that would sway one from reasonable doubt (at least)... anything?
it depends what you mean by evidence...one could say that the Bible itself is "evidence" ...

was there not cases of evidence int the OP?

I am pretty sure Bible scholars have found evidence of some sort....or reasons to think that maybe he there was a man named Jesus Christ...

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:36 PM

interesting...Santa Claus WAS a real person...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

Riddler

08-20-2010, 10:37 PM

unless you are trying to say Santa Claus was named after an actual human named Claus...which might be true I have no idea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

edit: beat me to it.

KeylessEntry

08-20-2010, 10:39 PM

no...it isn't at all...

one is possible the other is riding around on flying rain deer...

Yeah dude. Cause turning water into wine, healing the sick with magic powers, coming back to life 3 days after death, thats all possible...

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 10:40 PM

no...it isn't at all...

one is possible the other is riding around on flying rain deer...

unless you are trying to say Santa Claus was named after an actual human named Claus...which might be true I have no idea...

So being born of a virgin, walking on water, giving site to the blind, resurrecting the dead, turning water into wine, dying and then being resurrected yourself is more 'possible' than flying reindeer? :oldlol:

it depends what you mean by evidence...one could say that the Bible itself is "evidence" ...

was there not cases of evidence int the OP?

I am pretty sure Bible scholars have found evidence of some sort....or reasons to think that maybe he there was a man named Jesus Christ...

And like I said, that 'evidence' has many many holes that contradicts itself and historical record. And Bible scholars have found shit. The only thing they have is interpolations and faith.

Rizko

08-20-2010, 10:41 PM

no...

BUT, you would "LIKELY" have a better mind set if you did fear God...

likely less depressed...or happier if you are not depressed...(on average)

people who fear God (in general) are usually more content in life, more humble...ect...when times get tuff they have God to fall back on, and real or not he is there for them and does help...
I really don't feel like going through the whole thread to see how the argument/debate has evolved/grown, but I I want to give my opinion on this.

I remember talking to you in another thread about religion and happiness, and it seems to me that you assume that people who are religious are more happy due to their religion, when it could just as easily be said people who are happy and content in life are drawn to religion since it emphasizes the greatness of life et cetera.

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:41 PM

Yeah dude. Cause turning water into wine, healing the sick with magic powers, coming back to life 3 days after death, thats all possible...
read the OP...I am not asking if he was really the literal son of God...

F*ck dude just read the thread title,...

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:43 PM

I really don't feel like going through the whole thread to see how the argument/debate has evolved/grown, but I I want to give my opinion on this.

I remember talking to you in another thread about religion and happiness, and it seems to me that you assume that people who are religious are more happy due to their religion, when it could just as easily be said people who are happy and content in life are drawn to religion since it emphasizes the greatness of life et cetera.
no it can't cause like 99% (or whatever, idk) of religious people are born into it...they don't choose it out of happiness...

that might be true for those not born into it though...

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 10:43 PM

interesting...Santa Claus WAS a real person...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

Oh My GOD... I had no clue :eek:

From the first page...

Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness

:violin:

EDIT- interesting fact that some people might not know, besides the obvious similarities between Jesus and Santa- they are omnipotent/omniscient (they see all and know all), they reward you for good behavior, they're both celebrated on Christmas/the pagan winter solstice... Kris Kringle (everyone knows this is an alias for Santa) is the americanized version of Christkindl which literally translates to the 'Christ Child' in German if I'm not mistaken.

[QUOTE]Das Christkind (German "The Christ-child", pronounced [ˈkʁɪstkɪnt]) is the traditional Christmas gift-bringer in regions of Austria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Slovakia, Hungary, parts of Hispanic America, in certain areas of southern Brazil and in the Acadiana region of Louisiana. In Italy it is called Ges

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:47 PM

So being born of a virgin, walking on water, giving site to the blind, resurrecting the dead, turning water into wine, dying and then being resurrected yourself is more 'possible' than flying reindeer? :oldlol:

.

so you didn't read the OP either?

you really went this entire thread trying to prove he wasn't ****in magical...:oldlol:

NOOOO...I am asking if Jesus was an actual human being...not the literal son of God...

God damn...(pun intended)

And like I said, that 'evidence' has many many holes that contradicts itself and historical record. And Bible scholars have found shit. The only thing they have is interpolations and faith.
they don't think it is shit...

it is evidence...

why do you care so much one way or another?...would you be really pissed off if the was a real man named Christ who was crucified?

put your Bible hate down for a sec...

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:48 PM

Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness

okay?

what does that mean?...St. Nick was a real human and Jesus wasn't?

:confusedshrug:

what am I supposed to get out of that?

Rizko

08-20-2010, 10:49 PM

no it can't cause like 99% (or whatever, idk) of religious people are born into it...they don't choose it out of happiness...

that might be true for those not born into it though...
A lot of people are born into religious households where and don't follow what their taught. It still fits into what I'm saying, the people who had a happy/good upbringing found things in the religion they grew up with that they felt spoke to them, while the depressed people who felt that life was meaningless didn't have the accept what they were taught.

I'm not trying to say that either way to look at it is right, but to definitively say that either happiness >> religion or religion >> happiness is a big assumption that is hard to prove. I would say that their is a mixture of both honestly.

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 10:58 PM

A lot of people are born into religious households where and don't follow what their taught. It still fits into what I'm saying, the people who had a happy/good upbringing found things in the religion they grew up with that they felt spoke to them, while the depressed people who felt that life was meaningless didn't have the accept what they were taught.

I'm not trying to say that either way to look at it is right, but to definitively say that either happiness >> religion or religion >> happiness is a big assumption that is hard to prove. I would say that their is a mixture of both honestly.
I never suggested anything definitively...just saying "in general"...

there are tons of athiests that are perfectly happy, sane, content, ect...and there are tons of religious people that are unhappy, depressed, suicidal, ect...

however, evidence shows that it is usually the other way around...

and it makes perfect sense to me...it is depressing to think that this is all you will ever have to work with...I can see how a mind set like that could lead to depression...where the other mind set believes he is going to heaven...

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 11:01 PM

so you didn't read the OP either?

you really went this entire thread trying to prove he wasn't ****in magical...:oldlol:

NOOOO...I am asking if Jesus was an actual human being...not the literal son of God...

God damn...(pun intended)

And there is no evidence he was an actual human being. I think he was based on person who lived in Judea c. 150 BC and recycled pagan myths, but that's as far as it goes. Has nothing to do with faith, has to do with evidence and there is none to support he existed at all.

If you have anything to disprove my stance, post it.

they don't think it is shit...

it is evidence...

What is?

why do you care so much one way or another?...would you be really pissed off if the was a real man named Christ who was crucified?

put your Bible hate down for a sec...

Uh... you started the topic, not me. You did so with a preconceived notion, you even stated in the OP you were leaning towards there being evidence or proof. You didn't like what you saw so you started getting defensive.

I don't 'hate' the bible, there's some noble life theories in there but it's all mostly a book of myth.

And for the last f*cking time, Christ isn't his last name. Get through your thick skull :facepalm

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 11:08 PM

And there is no evidence he was an actual human being. I think he was based on person who lived in Judea c. 150 BC and recycled pagan myths, but that's as far as it goes. Has nothing to do with faith, has to do with evidence and there is none to support he existed at all.

If you have anything to disprove my stance, post it.

What is?

Uh... you started the topic, not me. You did so with a preconceived notion, you even stated in the OP you were leaning towards there being evidence or proof. You didn't like what you saw so you started getting defensive.

I don't 'hate' the bible, there's some noble life theories in there but it's all mostly a book of myth.

And for the last f*cking time, Christ isn't his last name. Get through your thick skull :facepalm
I never said it was last name just now...and when I did learn what his name ment I then stated I change my stance on which way I was leaning...

why are you putting words in my mouth?...and why are you being stupid?...I know you're not stupid so stop acting like a damn 12 year old...I am not getting defensive with you so stop getting childish with me...when you bumped this thing I stated there was no proof for either side...you asked for takers and I (and someone else) pointed out that it is impossible...

it was just shown that Santa was created out a real human so JUST MAYBE Jesus was too...don't act as though it is out of the question, it is certainly possible...

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 11:11 PM

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades after Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.[120]

^^^ from the OP

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 11:17 PM

why are you putting words in my mouth?...and why are you being stupid?...I know you're not stupid so stop acting like a damn 12 year old...I am not getting defensive with you so stop getting childish with me...when you bumped this thing I stated there was no proof for either side...you asked for takers and I (and someone else) pointed out that it is impossible...

Why is it impossible exactly? I proved that a MUCH lesser 'messiah' in Judea (the same area where Jesus proclaimed himself messiah) only 100 years after Jeus actually existed. Showed you religious and historical text (some contemporary), coins he minted, documents in his writing/name, etc... why is it so 'impossible' to prove that someone as extraordinary as Jesus existed when a guy who was in power for only 3 years and doesn't have billions of followers is all over the historical record?

And if it's impossible to prove he existed... what is the reason to believe he did?

it was just shown that Santa was created out a real human so JUST MAYBE Jesus was too...don't act as though it is out of the question, it is certainly possible...

I also showed that Kris Kringle=Jesus Christ so does that mean St. Nicholas is also Jesus? :confusedshrug: ... Santa Claus did not/does not exist. St. Nicholas did, but Santa was only based in part on him. Santa Claus is a figment of someone's imagination but billions of children around the world believe with all their heart that he watches everything they do and judges them, and rewards them for being good... then they grow up.

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 11:22 PM

^^^ from the OP

As I've shown, those canonical documents contradict one another and historical record, but since I know you're too dense to get things the first time around...

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[c] was to be born.

-Matthew 2

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, Joseph took his family and fled to Egypt and waited until an angel of the lord told them it was safe to go back to Judea- which happened once Herod died.

Herod reigned from 37 BCE to 4 BCE.

[B]In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

-Luke 2

So if we're looking for any sort of tangible proof that Jesus existed, Luke gives us a great starting point to look. Jesus, according to him, was born in Bethlehem after Joseph and Mary went there to register for the census of Quirinius on the orders of Augustus who called for a census of the entire Roman Empire. Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that's where his ancestor David (about 27-28 generations removed from Joseph according to Matthew) was from. Just another example of the NT writers going to great lengths to make Jesus the messiah of the OT :rolleyes:

Anyway, let's look at some problems posed by the 2 accounts...

The "Census of Quirinius" refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes taken in 6/7CE during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of direct Roman rule on what became Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea).[1] An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus,[2] who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.

...

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6 CE, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, ten years earlier.[14] In addition, no historical sources mention a worldwide or even a Roman-controlled world census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only;[15] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

So basically, the infallible word of God tells us two completely different birth dates, a decade apart, for his son/self, the messiah, and outright makes shit up that didn't happen. So the writers of the Gospel can't get their story straight and contradict one another AND history... so what reason is there to believe that anything in Luke, Matthew, or the New Testament should be taken as truth? :confusedshrug:

________________
If that's the 'evidence' they're touting... reconciliation is in order.

Maybe you want to tackle this one?

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 11:28 PM

Why is it impossible exactly? I proved that a MUCH lesser 'messiah' in Judea (the same area where Jesus proclaimed himself messiah) only 100 years after Jeus actually existed. Showed you religious and historical text (some contemporary), coins he minted, documents in his writing/name, etc... why is it so 'impossible' to prove that someone as extraordinary as Jesus existed when a guy who was in power for only 3 years and doesn't have billions of followers is all over the historical record?

And if it's impossible to prove he existed... what is there reason to believe he did?
it is impossible to show proof for either side because no one ever has...right?

no one is going to be able to come into this thread and literally "PROVE" that Jesus (as a human, not as a magical being) did or didn't exist...

right?...no one has ever proved anything?...from the little research I did, I found arguements for both sides...there are reasons to think that he did, and didn't exist (as a human...Jesus Christ the carpenter...whatever)

I also showed that Kris Kringle=Jesus Christ so does that mean St. Nicholas is also Jesus? :confusedshrug: ... Santa Claus did not/does not exist. St. Nicholas did, but Santa was only based in part on him. Santa Claus is a figment of someone's imagination but billions of children around the world believe with all their heart that he watches everything they do and judges them, and rewards them for being good... then they grow up.
and just like Santa...this thread is for people that understand there was no man born from a virgin who walked on water and came back from the dead...

Question for non-religious types...(most of us I think)

aka those of us that do NOT believe Christ was magic...

NOW...let's discuss if the magical Jesus found in the Bible came from the likeness of a real human...

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 11:33 PM

Maybe you want to tackle this one?
burnt out on this now...

honestly dude you make it hard for me to want to dig into the shit you are posting while you are calling me dense at the same time...I didn't read alot of your debates with others in here...

bump it another day when you are in a different state of mind...

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 11:45 PM

And just to throw salt on the wound...

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world".

-Gospel of Luke

Let's ask the man himself...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WoIE9xf9-Jo/SSHgQoF1KmI/AAAAAAAAA4k/LFoUfC7RqlA/s400/Augustus.jpg
"That N*gga is bullshittin"

In my fifth consulship, by order of the People and the Senate, I increased the number of patricians. Three times I revised the Senate list. In my sixth consulship, with my colleague, Marcus Agrippa, I made a census of the People. [By it] the number of Roman citizens was 4,063,000. Again in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinus [8 B.C.] I [took the census, when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,230,000. A third time . . . in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [14 A.D.], with Tiberius Caesar as colleague, I [took the census when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,937,000. By new legislation I have restored many customs of our ancestors which had begun to fall into disuse, and I have myself also set many examples worthy of imitation by those to follow me.

-Res Gestae Divi Augusti, c. 14 CE
(The Deeds of the Divine Augustus)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/14resgestae.html

No where in the historical record does it mention an Empire-wide census, especially one that required all subjects to return to their ancestors' home (in Joseph's case, he had to return to his 27 generations-removed ancestor David's homeland of Bethlehem... which coincidentally is where the Jewish messiah was prophesied to be born). Augustus himself tells us exactly when he ordered censuses and even gives the number of citizens who were counted.

The Gospel of Luke's account of Jesus' birth is bullshit, plain and simple. The Gospel of Matthew's account gives a different date (a decade earlier) and makes claims that can not be validated by anything tangible historically, even names another tyrant/political figure (Herod) whose connection to the Gospels in history does not exist anywhere.

:violin:

DonDadda59

08-20-2010, 11:49 PM

NOW...let's discuss if the magical Jesus found in the Bible came from the likeness of a real human...

That's an interesting topic for another day, too much material for here. I promise in the next few days I will create a thread about that topic, just for you.

burnt out on this now...

honestly dude you make it hard for me to want to dig into the shit you are posting while you are calling me dense at the same time...I didn't read alot of your debates with others in here...

bump it another day when you are in a different state of mind...

Sober up and we'll hash this thing out, maybe you can address some of the evidence I've posted in this thread :cheers:

-playmaker-

08-20-2010, 11:56 PM

That's an interesting topic for another day, too much material for here. I promise in the next few days I will create a thread about that topic, just for you.
that IS the topic...read the OP...

Sober up and we'll hash this thing out, maybe you can address some of the evidence I've posted in this thread :cheers:
childish...like most of your posts in here...sucks cause it looks like you are mixing your imaturity with good debate...

how about you "grow up" and we'll hash this thing out?

bump it another day when you aren't out to "throw salt on wounds"...that wasn't my intent with this thread...

DonDadda59

08-21-2010, 12:09 AM

that IS the topic...read the OP...

Fine. I will bump this thread in the next day or two with that information.

All I ask you to do is tell me why you think Jesus Christ is referred to as 'The Nazarene'...

miller-time

08-21-2010, 03:51 AM

you are putting alot of words in my mouth here...

1.COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY...great?...I read it..it means nothing in this in this conversation as I never said it was good or bad...I never said spirituality is the the #1 answer to anything...

because you just asked this.

that shit should be common knowledge for you...what are you learning about instead?...prozac and shit?...:facepalm

i've already mentioned that CBT and the other tools in the psychotherapist tool box are the best and most consistent approach in dealing with mental health problems and yet you still bring up prozac? why? i explained that drugs are dealt with by psychiatrists not by psychologists. there are over 400 types of psychoanalysis alone, there isn't just drugs OR spiritual guidance/healthy lifestyle. usually many tactics are attempted at once and are grouped in different ratios for the individual and those groupings may include a spiritual element. depression is caused by a range of factors and there are different subtypes so using a sole approach of spirituality is probably pointless in most cases. another important factor is education, teaching the patient what their disorder is so that it doesn't become a stigma for them and you also need to teach them how to recognise beginning symptoms so they can proactively prevent a relapse.

3. you did make it seem like you are against a healthy spiritual life...you have been this whole thread...acting as though believing in an after life is some false bandaid that just masks the real problem, when the truth is that it can "CURE" the problem completely...(not saying it always does, just saying it can)...you came off as though it hurts more than it helps or something...

If you are really not against it, then we have nothing to argue about I guess...

my point wasn't against spirituality but when you originally brought up the notion of a personal god almost as a necessity for suicide prevention i found that to be overreaching and impractical for a clinical situation. i'm also against the notion that it is more useful or necessary for combating these problems than other methods including drugs (although my argument was for psychotherapy not drugs). for ordinary problems and not actual disorders it is up to both the psychologist and the client to work together on an agreed upon outcome, if this involves a spiritual element then obviously i'm not against that. but a lot of severe patients need more than a suggestion of having a healthy spiritual outlook on life to combat their disorder, and following on from that, sadly yes a subset of that group will need medication, and a subgroup from that will actually need a strict no god talk policy (psychosis).

-playmaker-

08-21-2010, 05:51 AM

because you just asked this.

i've already mentioned that CBT and the other tools in the psychotherapist tool box are the best and most consistent approach in dealing with mental health problems and yet you still bring up prozac? why? i explained that drugs are dealt with by psychiatrists not by psychologists. there are over 400 types of psychoanalysis alone, there isn't just drugs OR spiritual guidance/healthy lifestyle. usually many tactics are attempted at once and are grouped in different ratios for the individual and those groupings may include a spiritual element. depression is caused by a range of factors and there are different subtypes so using a sole approach of spirituality is probably pointless in most cases. another important factor is education, teaching the patient what their disorder is so that it doesn't become a stigma for them and you also need to teach them how to recognise beginning symptoms so they can proactively prevent a relapse.

my point wasn't against spirituality but when you originally brought up the notion of a personal god almost as a necessity for suicide prevention i found that to be overreaching and impractical for a clinical situation. i'm also against the notion that it is more useful or necessary for combating these problems than other methods including drugs (although my argument was for psychotherapy not drugs). for ordinary problems and not actual disorders it is up to both the psychologist and the client to work together on an agreed upon outcome, if this involves a spiritual element then obviously i'm not against that. but a lot of severe patients need more than a suggestion of having a healthy spiritual outlook on life to combat their disorder, and following on from that, sadly yes a subset of that group will need medication, and a subgroup from that will actually need a strict no god talk policy (psychosis).
I don't remember saying either of those things...

you called having faith a false "bandaid" and then I said that drugs are the bandaid...

for the record, I don't even have that much of an issues with bandaids...if you get cut put one on, maybe it will heal...or maybe not...I don't even have issues with modern medicine...other than way to many people take meds that don't need them...

I was just pointing out that it has proven to work..."God"..."faith"...ect...

the entire foundation of AA is "God"...you know why?...not because they are some crazy relgious cult...but because when they use "God" to try and get people to stop drinking THEY SEE REALLY GOOD RESULTS!!!...it works!

similiar stuff can be said about other mental disorders or clinical depression...or just regular depression..."God" can give good results...

DonDadda59

08-21-2010, 06:57 PM

Fine. I will bump this thread in the next day or two with that information.

All I ask you to do is tell me why you think Jesus Christ is referred to as 'The Nazarene'...

As promised... Even though you never answered my question there.

Most people assume Jesus was called the Nazarene because he was from the town of Nazareth. Only problem is, there is no mention or trace of a place called Nazareth in both religious and historical records until about 200 CE. Since you're interested in finding a possible 'real' historical Jesus, the best place to start is with that particular term...

Nazarene as a title:

[QUOTE]Nazarene is a title applied to Jesus (c. 4 BC- c. AD 30), who grew up in Nazareth,[1] a town in Galilee, now in northern Israel. The word is used to translate two related words that appear in the Greek New Testament: Nazarēne (Nazarene) and Nazōraios (Nazorean or Nazaraean). The Greek phrases traditionally rendered as "Jesus of Nazareth" can be more literally translated "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazorean."[2] Therefore, the title Nazarene may have a religious significance.
...

The Gospel of Matthew explains that the title Nazarene (Nazorean or Nazaraean) is derived from the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazarene (Nazorean or Nazaraean)."
...

The Greek New Testament uses "Nazarene" six times, while " (Nazorean or Nazaraean)" is used 13 times. In the Book of Acts, "Nazorean" is used to refer to a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian, rather than an inhabitant of a town.[8] "Nazarene" is the modern Hebrew word for Christian (No

-playmaker-

08-21-2010, 07:19 PM

okay did a quick scan and saw no insults...lol

give me a little time though, I am just busy right now and that is alot of reading...

I'll get to it though I promise...

DonDadda59

08-21-2010, 07:20 PM

So I've established that the Original Christians, including Jesus/Yeshua himself were called Nazarenes, including the Bible. Most people have assumed it was because Jesus was from Nazareth, but that was a mistranslation of the Greek New Testament that changed 'Jesus the Nazarene' to 'Jesus of Nazareth'. No records of Nazareth exist (both religious and historical) before 200 AD.

When you follow the trail of the Nazarene, you find that they were part of a larger group known as the Essene, who most scholars think wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. When you look closer into the Scrolls, you find a very interesting character, one that many think may be the 'real' Jesus- the figure that was the basis for the future myth, what St. Nicholas is to Santa Claus.

The Teacher of Righteousness:

The Teacher of Righteousness (in Romanized Hebrew: Moreh ha-Tsedek) is a figure found in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, most prominently in the Damascus Document (CD). This document speaks briefly of the origins of the sect, probably Essenes, 390 years after the Babylonian exile and after 20 years of 'groping' blindly for the way "God... raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart" (CD 1:9-11). The Teacher claimed to have the proper understanding of the Torah, being the one through whom God would reveal to the community “the hidden things in which Israel had gone astray” (CD 3:12-15). He also claimed to be an inspired interpreter of the prophets, as the one “to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” (1QpHab 7:5).

Now there's way too much information on the teacher and I won't post a 30 page wall of text, but I can provide links to the Damascus Document (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/zadokite.html) (Part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to c. 100 BC) and a Biblical Study of the Teacher (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/qumran_bruce.pdf).

The general gist is that the Essenes, like the Pharisees were a group that broke away from mainstream Judaism because of a multitude of reasons- Hellenistic control/influenece of the Temple, perceived corruption within the religion, etc. They formed their own community in the desert and created prophecies about a messiah who would come along and rid the world of the wicked, restore Israel, bring God's Kingdom to Earth after 'the end of days', etc basically everything Christians believe now. The teacher came along 20 years after the group went out into the wilderness and challenged the old law and claimed to be the only one who could reveal God's true plan and his true word. He came into conflict with Alexander Jannaeus and was crucified along with about 800 others in a place that would be called Golgotha (which means 'place of the skull' and where coincidentally, the Jesus of the Bible was also crucified).

After his death, his followers continued to spread his message and believed he would be resurrected and fulfill the messianic/rapture prophecies. Then Paul of Tarsus came along and he and his followers took the idea, story, teachings and infused it with Pagan mythology to attract 'Gentiles' of the day to the religion. And we have Christianity as we know it today.

DonDadda59

08-24-2010, 10:37 PM

okay did a quick scan and saw no insults...lol

give me a little time though, I am just busy right now and that is alot of reading...

I'll get to it though I promise...

So what's your verdict your honor?

-playmaker-

08-24-2010, 10:38 PM

So what's your verdict your honor?
sigh...

okay...reading now

-playmaker-

08-24-2010, 10:54 PM

alright I am a little confused on some parts...

-are you claiming that Nazareth is fictional because there are no records of it's existance?

-are you claiming that "The Teacher" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the human which became the basis of Jesus?...like St. Nick to Santa?

then there is this:

So I've established that the Original Christians, including Jesus/Yeshua himself were called Nazarenes, including the Bible.

that is confusing because how can anyone be Christian BEFORE Jesus?...Jesus was supposedly Jewish...the Biblical Jesus anyway...maybe not the historical one, if there is one...

also, I am not sure I can have a "verdict" so to speak...you are providing good info, all I can really do is read it with interest...I don't deny any of it to be false...no reason to think that...it is interesting stuff...

what is "the Teacher's" real name?

that second link looks interesting...just brwsed real quick though...

THE TEACHER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES [p. 16]
1. Dating the Teacher [p. 16]
2. The Wicked Priest [p. 18]
3. Was the Wicked Priest Alexander Jannaeus? [p. 21]
4. The Man of Falsehood and the House of Absalom [p. 25]
5. Identifying the Teacher [p. 27]
III. THE TEACHER AND CHRISTIANITY [p. 28]
1. The Teacher and Jesus [p. 28]
2. Was the Teacher martyred? [p. 31]
3. The Teacher and Messiahship [p. 34]

DonDadda59

08-24-2010, 11:14 PM

alright I am a little confused on some parts...

-are you claiming that Nazareth is fictional because there are no records of it's existance?

I'm not personally claiming anything, just saying that Nazareth before 200 CE/AD doesn't exist anywhere historically, including the Old Testament and other religious documents. Also, 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a bit of a mistranslation of the Greek septuagint whose actual translation is 'Jesus the Nazarene'. So Nazareth MAY have been a geographical place before 200 AD, but most likely 'Nazarene' is a religious title as opposed to referring to a place of origin.

-are you claiming that "The Teacher" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the human which became the basis of Jesus?...like St. Nick to Santa?

I am.

then there is this:

that is confusing because how can anyone be Christian BEFORE Jesus?...Jesus was supposedly Jewish...the Biblical Jesus anyway...maybe not the historical one, if there is one...

'Christian' is the term that later replaced the term Nazarene or Ebionite. The original Christians were Jewish, no debate there.

also, I am not sure I can have a "verdict" so to speak...you are providing good info, all I can really do is read it with interest...I don't deny any of it to be false...no reason to think that...it is interesting stuff...

what is "the Teacher's" real name?

That's the grand mystery behind his story- the Dead Sea Scrolls never give a name beyond 'the teacher of righteousness' which has lead a lot of people to speculate about his true identity. Some have concluded he was Onias III, others James the Just, and many have equated the teacher with Yeshua.

THE TEACHER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES [p. 16]
1. Dating the Teacher [p. 16]
2. The Wicked Priest [p. 18]
3. Was the Wicked Priest Alexander Jannaeus? [p. 21]
4. The Man of Falsehood and the House of Absalom [p. 25]
5. Identifying the Teacher [p. 27]
III. THE TEACHER AND CHRISTIANITY [p. 28]
1. The Teacher and Jesus [p. 28]
2. Was the Teacher martyred? [p. 31]
3. The Teacher and Messiahship [p. 34]

Yep, the similarities between the teacher and Yeshua of the Christians/Nazaren and their sect's beliefs and practices is uncanny.

-playmaker-

08-24-2010, 11:25 PM

okay, I got you on The Essenes thing...they were the Jewish that later went on to become Christians...including Yeshua

and "The Teacher" in the scrolls is still a mystery...but believed to be the human Christ so to speak...

and theTeacher was crucufied in the same spot the Biblical Jesus was...

it is all very believable to me...

He came into conflict with Alexander Jannaeus and was crucified along with about 800 others in a place that would be called Golgotha (which means 'place of the skull' and where coincidentally, the Jesus of the Bible was also crucified).

maybe that is no "coincidence"...:confusedshrug:

does anyone know what the conflict with Alexander was?

did the Teacher claim to be the "Son of God"?

DonDadda59

08-24-2010, 11:43 PM

maybe that is no "coincidence"...:confusedshrug:

Sarcasm on my part.

does anyone know what the conflict with Alexander was?

did the Teacher claim to be the "Son of God"?

There were basically 3 main schools of Judaism (with many subsets)- Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes. Alexander Jannaeus was aligned with the Sadducee who were aristocrats who allowed more Hellenistic influences to pervade Jewish faith and practices which led to a conflict with the other groups. Alexander routinely persecuted rival religious figures as he was the High Priest (some say the 'Wicked Priest' in the Scrolls). So a rival teacher who claimed to personally have a relationship with God and to solely have understanding/authority on faith issues would've been a problem to someone in Alexander's position. The conflicts between Jannaeus and the Pharisees and other groups led to a civil war and the infamous crucifixions of the 800.

And as far as I know, the teacher is never referred to as the son of God, that's just a Pagan convention that the Pauline Christians introduced a century later.

Edit- Interesting bit I almost forgot, in the scrolls the teacher was apprehended and persecuted on Passover.

Positive

08-25-2010, 01:15 AM

This was a really interesting thread, thanks for all the info guys. I'm still kinda formulating my opinion on everything, but a lot of this info backs up what I thought previously.

DonDadda59

08-25-2010, 02:19 AM

did the Teacher claim to be the "Son of God"?

Just found this...

From the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q246): [I]"He shall be called the Son of God; they will call him Son of the Most High ... He will judge the earth in righteousness ... and every nation will bow down to him ... with [God

-playmaker-

08-25-2010, 04:44 AM

That is really good stuff Don...seriously...I find it really interesting...

exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for when I created this thread...thank you

rufuspaul

08-25-2010, 09:17 AM

^This is an early Christian leader, in the religion's infancy (before the Council of Nicea, Rome usurping the religion, etc), saying that the story of Jesus' birth, life, deeds should be accepted in the same strain as the stories of the birth, life, deeds of the Sons of Jupiter/Zeus, ie, Pagan Gods.

Yet, we're here arguing if a particular pagan myth actually existed?

The early church leaders were trying to spread Christianity to the Gentiles so it doesn't seem unusual that they would try and draw comparisons among deities to help explain the faith.

rufuspaul

08-25-2010, 09:24 AM

After his death, his followers continued to spread his message and believed he would be resurrected and fulfill the messianic/rapture prophecies. Then Paul of Tarsus came along and he and his followers took the idea, story, teachings and infused it with Pagan mythology to attract 'Gentiles' of the day to the religion. And we have Christianity as we know it today.

But is it possible that the "teacher" of the dead sea scrolls might have been one of the OT prophets?

DonDadda59

08-25-2010, 12:41 PM

The early church leaders were trying to spread Christianity to the Gentiles so it doesn't seem unusual that they would try and draw comparisons among deities to help explain the faith.

I agree 100%, that's why there is so much Pagan influence within the NT. In Acts 9, Jesus says to Ananias "Go!This man [Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel". So Paul is tasked with spreading the religion to the Gentiles (Pagans), what better way to do that than to tweek the faith to make it more accommodating and familiar to them? As I've posted before, Justin Martyr, an early Church father says:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter".

"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius".

So Justin says explicitly that everything Christians believe about Jesus (being born of the word, the virgin birth, healing powers, even the crucifixion/resurrection) is the same exact thing that the Pagans/Gentiles believed about their Gods, more specifically 'The Sons of Jupiter'.

The Universal nature and appeal of Pauline Christianity- a monotheistic religion with Pagan influences- was the perfect tool for an Emperor like Constantine to use to control the diverse population of the Roman Empire through conformity and homogenous worship. It was the same exact thing Ptolemy Soter did in Egypt with Serapis (Christus).

It should be noted that the original Jewish-Christians did not believe that Jesus was a God or the Son of a God, he was human to them. It wasn't until Paul came along and changed the story and spread it to the Gentiles that the original belief was phased out.

But is it possible that the "teacher" of the dead sea scrolls might have been one of the OT prophets?

There is no indication anywhere that the teacher was one of the OT prophets. Nothing in the scrolls or their contemporary/accompanying documents or any scholarly review suggests this.

DonDadda59

08-25-2010, 12:56 PM

That is really good stuff Don...seriously...I find it really interesting...

exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for when I created this thread...thank you

Glad I could help :cheers:

rufuspaul

08-25-2010, 01:05 PM

I agree 100%, that's why there is so much Pagan influence within the NT. In Acts 9, Jesus says to Ananias "Go!This man [Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel". So Paul is tasked with spreading the religion to the Gentiles (Pagans), what better way to do that than to tweek the faith to make it more accommodating and familiar to them? As I've posted before, Justin Martyr, an early Church father says:

So Justin says explicitly that everything Christians believe about Jesus (being born of the word, the virgin birth, healing powers, even the crucifixion/resurrection) is the same exact thing that the Pagans/Gentiles believed about their Gods, more specifically 'The Sons of Jupiter'.

The Universal nature and appeal of Pauline Christianity- a monotheistic religion with Pagan influences- was the perfect tool for an Emperor like Constantine to use to control the diverse population of the Roman Empire through conformity and homogenous worship. It was the same exact thing Ptolemy Soter did in Egypt with Serapis (Christus).

It should be noted that the original Jewish-Christians did not believe that Jesus was a God or the Son of a God, he was human to them. It wasn't until Paul came along and changed the story and spread it to the Gentiles that the original belief was phased out.

Interesting. Similar pagan incorporations were also used later on (Halloween, Christmas).