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

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Asking to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist is like asking to prove Santa Claus doesn't, it's a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=DonDadda59] 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So in summation- no physical evidence exists, no contemporary historical evidence exists and the historical references that were brought up are either non-contemporary or have many 'interpolations' (read forgeries), the accounts told by the people who originated his life story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?[/QUOTE]
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...

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

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas[/url]

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]
unless you are trying to say Santa Claus was named after an actual human named Claus...which might be true I have no idea...
[/QUOTE]


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas[/url]




edit: beat me to it.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]no...it isn't at all...

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

[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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...[/QUOTE]

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:


[QUOTE][B]it depends what you mean by evidence...one could say that the Bible itself is "evidence" ...
[/B]
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...[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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...[/QUOTE]
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.

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

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

[QUOTE=Rizko]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, [COLOR="Red"]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[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]interesting...Santa Claus WAS a real person...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas[/url][/QUOTE]

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

From the first page...

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness[/QUOTE]

: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

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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:

.[/QUOTE]

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)

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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.[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE]Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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...[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Rizko]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.[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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)[/QUOTE]

And there is no evidence he was an actual human being. I [I]think[/I] he was [I]based[/I] 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.


[QUOTE]they don't think it is shit...

it is evidence...[/QUOTE]

What is?

[QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]And there is no evidence he was an actual human being. I [I]think[/I] he was [I]based[/I] 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[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE]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, [COLOR="Red"]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[/COLOR].[120][/QUOTE]


^^^ from the OP

[QUOTE] 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... [/QUOTE]

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?

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

[QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE]

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 [I]based[/I] 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.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]^^^ from the OP[/QUOTE]

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...

[QUOTE][B]After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod[/B], 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[b] 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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE][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.[/B]

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[/QUOTE]

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...

[QUOTE]The "Census of Quirinius" refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes [B]taken in 6/7CE [/B]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.

[B]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.[/B] [B][SIZE="3"]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. [/SIZE][/B]

...


[B]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] [COLOR="Red"]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[/COLOR].[/B]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

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 [I]anything[/I] 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?

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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?

[B]And if it's impossible to prove he existed... what is there reason to believe he did?[/B][/QUOTE]
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)

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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 [I]based[/I] in part on him. [COLOR="Red"]Santa Claus is a figment of someone's imagination [/COLOR]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.[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE]Question for [COLOR="Red"]non-religious types[/COLOR]...(most of us I think)[/QUOTE]

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...

[QUOTE]Maybe you want to tackle this one?[/QUOTE]
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...

And just to throw salt on the wound...

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

-Gospel of Luke
[/QUOTE]

Let's ask the man himself...

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

[QUOTE]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. [B]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.[/B] 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)
[URL="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/14resgestae.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/14resgestae.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

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 [B][I]himself[/I][/B] 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 [I]another[/I] tyrant/political figure (Herod) whose connection to the Gospels in history does not exist anywhere.

:violin:

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]NOW...let's discuss if the magical Jesus found in the Bible came from the likeness of a real human...[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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...
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=DonDadda59][COLOR="Red"]That's an interesting topic for another day[/COLOR], too much material for here. I promise in the next few days I will create a thread about that topic, just for you.[/QUOTE]
that IS the topic...read the OP...
[QUOTE=DonDadda59][COLOR="Red"]Sober up and we'll hash this thing out[/COLOR], maybe you can address some of the [B]evidence[/B] I've posted in this thread :cheers:[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]that IS the topic...read the OP...[/QUOTE]

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'...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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...[/quote]

because you just asked this.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]that shit should be common knowledge for you...what are you learning about instead?...prozac and shit?...:facepalm [/QUOTE]

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 [i]sole[/i] 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.

[quote]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...[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE=miller-time]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 [i]sole[/i] 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 [COLOR="Red"]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[/COLOR] (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).[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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'...[/QUOTE]

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...

[B]Nazarene as a title:[/B]

[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). [B]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.[/B]
...

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. [B]In the Book of Acts, "Nazorean" is used to refer to a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian[/B], rather than an inhabitant of a town.[8] "[B]Nazarene" is the modern Hebrew word for Christian [/B](No

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 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.

[B]The Teacher of Righteousness:[/B]

[QUOTE]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).[/QUOTE]

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 [URL="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/zadokite.html"]Damascus Document[/URL] (Part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to c. 100 BC) and a [URL="http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/qumran_bruce.pdf"]Biblical Study of the Teacher[/URL].

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.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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...[/QUOTE]

So what's your verdict your honor?

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]So what's your verdict your honor?[/QUOTE]
sigh...

okay...reading now

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:

[QUOTE]So I've established that the Original Christians, [COLOR="Red"]including Jesus/Yeshua himself [/COLOR]were called Nazarenes, including the Bible.[/QUOTE]

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]
[COLOR="Red"]III. THE TEACHER AND CHRISTIANITY [p. 28][/COLOR]
1. The Teacher and Jesus [p. 28]
2. Was the Teacher martyred? [p. 31]
3. The Teacher and Messiahship [p. 34]

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]-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?[/QUOTE]

I am.

[QUOTE]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... [/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE] 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? [/QUOTE]

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.


[QUOTE]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]
[COLOR="Red"]III. THE TEACHER AND CHRISTIANITY [p. 28][/COLOR]
1. The Teacher and Jesus [p. 28]
2. Was the Teacher martyred? [p. 31]
3. The Teacher and Messiahship [p. 34][/QUOTE]

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

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...

[QUOTE]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' [COLOR="Red"]and where coincidentally, the Jesus of the Bible was also crucified)[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

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"?

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]maybe that is no "coincidence"...:confusedshrug: [/QUOTE]

Sarcasm on my part.

[QUOTE]does anyone know what the conflict with Alexander was?

did the Teacher claim to be the "Son of God"?[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]did the Teacher claim to be the "Son of God"?[/QUOTE]

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

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

[quote=DonDadda59]




^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 [I]particular[/I] pagan myth actually existed?[/quote]

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.

[quote=DonDadda59]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.[/quote]

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