No, just for the sin of being Jewish or Muslim. Or even some other sect of Christianity...
Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian... all provide historical records of Jesus outside of the Gospels.
Yes they did, and those acts were the antithesis of Jesus' teachings. However, this was not the argument.
Again, educated Christians I can believe in... but there are no rational, sane christians.
Like I said, prove it. Quote their 1st hand accounts of the walking, talking person who today we call Jesus Christ...
Each of their accounts are hearsay. None of these guys lived when Jesus Christ supposedly lived. That's like me writing a biography about Abraham Lincoln, and telling everyone I used to drink beer and go huntin with him!
Ill bring up the catholic apology from 1992 again. Why did the pope have to formally apologize about earth and sun centered controversy. Remember, in the dark age, the Catholic church sold indulgences in exchange for many thought to be a path to salvation. What else has the catholic church changed in history... The very photo of Jesus Christ!
When you think of Jesus Christ, this is what everyone thinks of:
Most people accept this as the image of Christ. A fair skinned, light haired, blue eyed man who resembles a EUROPEAN man. What would a Jewish man from his time really have looked like? I didn't live back then, but any expert can tell you that a Jewish man from that era probably was dark skinned or black, dark hair, huge beard, resembling a cave man of sorts. Why has the church marketed an image of the Savior of man kind, that in all actuality, is completely different from what he may have looked like? So the catholic church is capable of changing the entire appearance of the savior of all man kind while suppressing human advancement for a 1,000 years, conducted several holy wars, had a child as a pope at one time, but they aren't capable of cooking the history books (when they were the only ones writing them at the time).
Someone made a comment that I have an agenda against the Catholic church. Friends, let me tell you, the catholic church is one of the most evil, corrupt organizations in the history of man kind. We're talking about a church who has waged its own wars. Sent children to fight their Holy Wars. All in the name of God (Which isn't much different from today).
Even today, they preach that they want to save the babies... But I have to ask myself, for what? So they can grow up to be sexually assaulted as alter boys?
If you can't take 5 mins of your day and research all of the atrocities of the catholic church through out the last 2000 years, then anything I tell you isn't going to change an opinion.
For those of you who think I just make up the fact that the catholics suppressed literacy during the dark ages
In the late 1300s, John Wycliffe translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretic.
In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic church so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536.
So much for spreading the Gospel (Good News) huh?
I think it's sad and I guess a sign of the times how much the three of you get off bashing Christians.
Because I believe in the teachings of Jesus, in forgiveness and love, you all need to make fun of me for it? Because I believe Jesus died for all our sins, you feel the need to belittle my beliefs?
Fundamentalists upset me as much as anyone. Christian fundamentalists make me sick just like any other type of fundamentalists.
But I wish you guys would learn more tolerance and at least not lump all Christians in one large negative category.
I am a pretty big sinner, and no role model of Christianity. I consider myself a fairly bright person. My M.B.A. is from Auburn university with a finance concentration (which simply means I took all graduate elective finance courses). One of the best friends I met there is from India, is not a christian, and is making 300+ in the northern states. I didn't judge him or decide not to be his friend because he wasn't Christian. My undergrad was UT. My best friend from there is a lawyer in the 75-100k range. Also not a Christian, but that didn't cause me to judge him or not be his friend. I do not consider myself as intelligent as either of those friends. I am not saying I am an Ivy-League class or anything. But I do consider myself fairly smart.
I can name you several family members and friends that ARE christians and in the 1 million net worth range, with college and post graduate degrees.
I don't like to get personal on a forum, and I can't say I am the greatest example of a rational person either, but to make blanket statements like "there are no sane Christians"... it bothers me that you guys are that intolerant and believe that. But I know no matter what I say it's not going to influence your opinion, so I will bow out and let you continue your ranting. I forgive you for your insults of my faith.
Because I believe in the teachings of Jesus, in forgiveness and love, you all need to make fun of me for it? Because I believe Jesus died for all our sins, you feel the need to belittle my beliefs?
Fundamentalists upset me as much as anyone. Christian fundamentalists make me sick just like any other type of fundamentalists.
But I wish you guys would learn more tolerance and at least not lump all Christians in one large negative category.
I am a pretty big sinner, and no role model of Christianity. I consider myself a fairly bright person. My M.B.A. is from Auburn university with a finance concentration (which simply means I took all graduate elective finance courses). One of the best friends I met there is from India, is not a christian, and is making 300+ in the northern states. I didn't judge him or decide not to be his friend because he wasn't Christian. My undergrad was UT. My best friend from there is a lawyer in the 75-100k range. Also not a Christian, but that didn't cause me to judge him or not be his friend. I do not consider myself as intelligent as either of those friends. I am not saying I am an Ivy-League class or anything. But I do consider myself fairly smart.
I can name you several family members and friends that ARE christians and in the 1 million net worth range, with college and post graduate degrees.
I don't like to get personal on a forum, and I can't say I am the greatest example of a rational person either, but to make blanket statements like "there are no sane Christians"... it bothers me that you guys are that intolerant and believe that. But I know no matter what I say it's not going to influence your opinion, so I will bow out and let you continue your ranting. I forgive you for your insults of my faith.
Oh, 1st hand accounts? Well Matthew and John both wrote 1st hand accounts of Jesus. Prove to me that those two aren't reliable.
But, that's not what you said before. What happened to the Catholic church killing people for claiming the earth was round? You keep throwing out arguments that have nothing to do with the OP hoping something will stick. No one is arguing with you about the fact that the Catholic church has commited terrible atrocities throughout history. Yet you continue to post snippets from Wiki hoping to enlighten people who aren't even reading your posts. If anything, you've proved that a "little learning is a dangerous thing."
So then you are admitting that the Bible is the only place with account of Jesus? And you're going to fall back on the "it's true because it's in the Bible" defense?
Plato wrote his Tetralogies somewhere between 427 and 347 B.C. The earliest copy we have found was produced in 900 A.D. That is a span of 1,200 years. Also, there are only 7 manuscript copies. In contrast, there are 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts that exist. These copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. No one disputes the authorship of Plato yet for some reason the New Testament’s veracity is challenged at every turn. The New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, has been challenged, attacked, picked apart, questioned, and debated more than any other historical text in the world, yet it continues to stand.
Texts written by people who actually knew Alexander the Great or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are all lost apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, yet we accept that he existed and most likely did most of the things that are attributed to him. The prime sources for the New Testament - The Gospels, Paul's letters - were written within about fifty years of his death by people who most likely knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. Most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Also, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually eye witnesses, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing.
Texts written by people who actually knew Alexander the Great or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are all lost apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, yet we accept that he existed and most likely did most of the things that are attributed to him. The prime sources for the New Testament - The Gospels, Paul's letters - were written within about fifty years of his death by people who most likely knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. Most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Also, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually eye witnesses, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing.
C'mon Starkiller. You're applying a standard to the historical person of Jesus that is not required for ANY other figure in history. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean it is not true. You have to admit, you are being prejudicially unfair.
Well gee... why should we ever consider a higher standard to a person who is supposedly the son of god?!?!
Sure, there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just assume the Bible is exactly right. Just like we should assume that the Koran is exactly right. Just like we all assume that Joseph Smith's golden plates are real. And that Kim Jong-Il is god. And that Xenu was a real galactic overlord. And that Zeus/Jupiter was the king of the gods. And that Luke Skywalker (or a real lfe approximation, if you prefer) really blew up the Death Star long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...
Our view of lots of historical figures are not entirely historically accurate. The facts get lost over time in the face of myth and the lack of actual records. This is exactly the point. The Jesus myth is no different than any other religious mythology. Maybe a real person who it is based on really lived. Maybe not. But you can't make any sort of rational argument that there is ANY evidence that corroborates the Bible's accounts.
I've already given you corroborative evidence in the form of extra-biblical authors who mention Jesus. There is more corroborative evidence of the Bible's account of Jesus than any historical figure of that time period. There is more corroborative evidence of the Bible's account of everything than any other religious text. The only reason you are dismissing this evidence is because you don't believe in the teachings found in the Bible. You are doing the precise thing you accuse Christians of doing - dismissing the evidence because of a personal bias.
Anyone can read a book and if you pay a university enough money, and show up to class, you will get a piece of paper saying you know enough about a subject to work in that field. Congrats on that achievement. However intelligence isn't measured by the number of zeros in your net-worth.
Whether you would say this aloud or not... If I told you I believed that 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the galactic confederacy, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8 like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs and that was how humans were brought to earth. You would question my sanity. Right or wrong? Whether you reply yes or no, or reply at all, I'm willing to venture you would say Yes. Yet, neither claim can be completely verified and both claims take an extraordinary amount of faith to believe, whether you think my claims are bunk or not.
What is the difference in believing that as opposed to Jesus who did things that impossible.
What about the several other dozens of men I listed earlier in the thread who allegedly performed miracles, were raised from the dead after 3 days, had 12 disiciples? How can you believe in Jesus and not believe in them? What makes the story of Jesus so intriguing, when its the same story lived out by dozens of other men.
For example, let's look at the similarities of Jesus Christ and Krishna...
Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled.
Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
Yet, the story of Jesus is completely plausible to Christians, but the story of Krishna to most Christians is bunk (or they try to play Krishna off as a prophet of some sort, even tho there is no evidence of this).
Thats why I think the idea is irrational. Religion has traditionally been a way to make money, getting back to my story of Xenu, that was L Ron Hubbard's intent when he started Scientology. To make money... Even though the facts are out, and its even in writing the LRH said that, people still join Scientology every day.
Once again, you are wrong. The "similarities" between Krishna and Jesus are not found in the historical account of Krishna and can all be traced to a guy named Kersey Graves. Google the name and tell me what historians think about him.
Oh, and your scientology example just proves you would be crazy to believe that. L. Ron Hubbard admitted to making up scientology on a bet that he couldn't create a religion that anyone would follow. Scientology bears no similarity to Christianity.
if Jesus isn't real then explain this. :wink2:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s-on-banana-peel/story-e6freuy9-1225812846613
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s-on-banana-peel/story-e6freuy9-1225812846613
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
