See other Religion Articles
Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: Bible
Post Date: 2007-10-18 13:09:07 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 2507
Comments: 195
I find it curious that so many people have so much faith in men. And, in what men say, and this is esp. true when what the men says flys directly in the face of what they claim to represent/say. I hold to this firmly; A man is known by his actions, and not by his words. And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches. And specifically those churches which claim to be Christian churches. And to the men who serve in those churches, and who know that they lie. After all, such men do, supposedly, read the Bible. Well, they have at least one time in their lives I think it is fair to assume. More than that? Pretty doubtful actually. So this brings me to the question I posed in the title of this post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? The only acceptable answer to this comes from the Bible. I assume that everyone who claims to be Christian will agree with this. My first Bible (that I read extensively) was The King James Study Bible. I have continued to use it, although I have more than a dozen different Bibles now. In the King James; Galatians 3:13; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED is EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE. Second witness; "...for it is written ... " ; Deutronomy 22:22; And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him from a tree; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) ... Now, this may come as a surprise to many of you, but a tree ain't a cross; it is a post. In the Spanish translation of the King James, it is clearer, for they use the term madero, which means board, or, post. In addition, if you have read anything about the Roman Empire, one of the notable facts about the Romans was their efficiency in killing people. And it is not efficient to use two pieces of wood, i.e., a cross, when a single piece of wood, a post, will suffice. And, in fact, this is how the Romans did hang those who they wished to make examples out of; on a post. (Yeah, yeah, I know; all the movies use crosses. And, your point is?) There is another point that must be made here; when a man is hung on a post, or, for that matter, if he were to be hung on a cross, with nails, YOU CAN NOT DRIVE THE NAILS THROUGH THE PALMS OF HIS HAND. It will not work, because when the post/cross is lifted up and dropped into the hole prepared for it, the nails will rip out of the hands and the man will drop to the ground. The Romans knew this from, I am sure, experience, and the nails were ALWAYS driven into the wrists of the victim, between the two bones of the arm. This is the only location which offers enough strength to be usuable is such a manner. The best depiction of Jesus being executed that I have seen is contained in the Watchtower book; What Does The Bible Really Teach? on page 52. What does this mean: If you are attending a so-called Christian church, which uses the cross as a part of their worship, and protrays Jesus on that cross with nails through the palms of his hand, then you are participating in a deliberate lie. And, you are in a church properly described in Revelations a one of the daughters of the whore of Babylon. (I paraphrase; not going to look it up today.) Now, let's look at a couple of other Bibles and see what is said; New American Standard Bible; Galatians 3:13; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is writte, "CUESED IS EVERY ONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" -- Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), ... Pretty good. Not far off, but.... let's take a quick look at another Bible. Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta); Galatians 3:13; Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming accursed for our sakes (for it is writtenm Crused is everyone who hangs on a cross). OOPS! WOW! Boy, do we need that second witness now! Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree but you shall bury him the same day (for he who shall revile God shall be crucified), ... Gotta a problem here, because the second witness does not confirm what was written in Galatians. That means that there is an error in this Bible, and brings into question any quotes taken from it, unless they be confirmed by a second witness. And this problem probably stems from the translator wanting to believe what he had been taught about the cross. And rather than translate directly, he transposed his beliefs into the translation. I am a Christian; I freely and happily and contentedly proclaim this to be true. Chritianity is NOT a religion; it is a way of life, attempting to follow in the footsteps of The Christ. As a Christian, I have a responsibility to study His Word, that I not be lead into error. I accept that responsibility. I also accept the responsibility to help others to learn as well, that any errors that I or they hold may be revealed and corrected jointly. I have stated this before; I ask for correction in anything that I am in error on. And I have been corrected, and I thank those who help me to learn, and, (this is a big one!) change. I hope you find this post helpful, and that it helps to bring all of us to a wider understanding of what is being, deliberately, done to America, through what is supposed to be His church (people). Next post, in a day or so; Is Jesus Christ God?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151 (#0)
The argument that Jesus had the nails driven through his wrists rather than palms does little to refute the notion that he was hung from a cross. Are you saying that he was nailed to a single post, with his arms either over his head, or with his arms down at his sides (I'm trying to properly picture this)? Interestingly, lost in antiquity is a Gaulish figure named "Esus" who was apparently sacrificed by being hung from a tree.
The answer is obvious if you took the time to watch Mel Gibson's version of the event.
The part about the palms has nothing to do with the cross or post; it is simply another example of how lies are told to further an agenda; an agenda of men, and not of service to God. Are you saying that he was nailed to a single post Yes, and as I explain in the information supplied, this is exactly how the Romans did their executions. with his arms either over his head Exactly. Now, if you are interested in where the cross came from, it came to Christainity through the Roman church, and came from Egypt; http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/generalancientegyptianreligion.htm The Ancient Ankh, Symbol of Life by Taylor Ray Ellison The Ankh was, for the ancient Egyptians, the symbol (the actual Hieroglyphic sign) of life but it is an enduring icon that remains with us even today as a Christian cross. It is one of the most potent symbols represented in Egyptian art, often forming a part of decorative motifs. The ankh seems at least to be an evolved form of, or associated with the Egyptian glyph for magical protection, sa. If you wish to take this further back, try Babylonia, which is where the Mystery Religions started. That, of course, is the bedrock of the Roman church.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Seems to me you should look at the original Greek of Galatians before concluding anything. The Greek here translated as "on a tree" is "epi xylou," literally "on (something made of) wood". My Greek-German New Testament translates this as "am Holz," i.e., "on wood." I don't have a Greek-English lexicon around to confirm this, but I suspect you're right that "xylon" here can be used for a tree. But I would be very surprised if it couldn't also be used to refer to a (wooden) cross.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Right. That is where I always go for answers; to the movies. Get real.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
When I find the same words in multiple Bibles, then I will go with the translators in the majority; this is why I have a dozen Bibles. As to using the same word for a cross, which is a construction rather than a single object, not hardly. The people of that day and age knew very well what a cross was, and, what it stood for. See #3 for an explanation.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Why is the Gibson vehicle any less valid than the recount in any of the myriad of B-books ?
okay, this author is another prime example of the essence of fundy christianity, which is nothing but idolatry. idolatry of a book....a map is not the place, a book is not god. apparently, in this book, one is turn within and seek the 'divine counselor' for insight, and leave it at that. not much money to be made of the franchise business if you teach em that.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind: The Core, Eric Clapton
Jesus is a fictional character like Hercules and the Bible is nothing but a collection of sun-worship allegories and folklore. Jesus is the personification of the sun, or the sun anthropomorphized. He's the sun of god, the light of the world, who has risen. Christianity has its roots in the worship of the heavens. This is why Christians believe that when they die they will go to "heaven" with God's sun.
That applies only to the good ones. The bad ones will be tossed into a lake of fire, where rather than die quickly, they'll roast alive for eternity. Quackery.
Can you offer any evidence of these allegations? If not, then they are merely opinions.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I am to assume from this comment that you have not read the Bible. If you had, and if you had spent any time in it, you would realize that the Bible is not and does not pretend to be a so-called god. The word god means judge; as in, those who judge. This is why the Ceasars were known as judges. They made the law and they judged the people according to the law. The Bible is about knowledge. That is why it has lasted for thousands of years. The Bible teaches people who they are, and how they stand in relation to the Natural Law of the universe, in however a manner you wish to view that Law. With the understanding that if you wish to deny that God is responsible for the universe, and you, then at some point you will pay a price for that belief. This is esp. true if you do crack open a Bible, and then deny what you have learned. I understand perfectly (as perfectly as is possible) that His Word is written in our hearts, and if we listen to Him, we know right from wrong. But that is not the purpose of the Bible, which is to explain many of the things we are faced with in this life, and how to deal with them. As well, as what is correct in ordering our lives. THAT, is why the Bible is so good for us.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
That applies only to the good ones. Yeah, and not only that but you have to be part of the RIGHT faction to qualify. The Catholics know they're the "right" faction, and everyone else is screwed. And the Baptists know their's is "right", just like the Lutherans know they have it right etc. Yep, that notion is quackery. Especially in light of the fact that Scripture teaches otherwise. Of course, religious leaders DON'T teach what the Scriptures actually say. Incidentally, I haven't found in Scripture where it says you'll "go to heaven" when you die either. I think the Bible has gotten a "bad rap". The worst thing that ever happened to it was that religions got their hands on it...
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I'd just assume debate the historical verisimilitude of Lord of the Rings.
have you seen Zeitgeist Part 1? i'm not saying yea or nay. i do think it's compelling enough historical information to be at least considered as factual.
Where do you get that non-sense? Where does it teach, in the Bible, that Christians are to go to some heaven? And if you can not point out specifically where, in the Bible, this is taught, then you should not speak of that which you have no knowledge of. Do not confuse the mainstream daughters (so-called churches) of the whore of Babylon (Roman Catholic church) as Christian churches just cause they say that they are; a man is known by his works, and not by his words.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Really? And, where do you find this in the Bible? Please, I would like to know, cause I must have missed it. A bunch of times!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
When Gibson's work is around for a couple of thousand years, then, just maybe, it will have some vailidity. Short of that, spare me.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Well Innie, I must admit you put forward a solid argument, and I'm especially happy about that lake of fire thing. I was told by a poster never to be mentioned by me that I might be doomed to spend a least a short shift there. I haven't had a decent night's sleep since.
That's fine. I just often wonder why people say things as if they are fact without being prepared to offer any evidence to support it.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I have the Gibson Platinum DVD Collection pal...."The Passion" is complete with Aramaic / Latin / Hebrew subtitles and has a shelf life of more than twice that of my Spam stash, so it will pass your precious test of time.
No I haven't. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out later.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I get my information from reading. Where do you get yours from, the Bible? Where does it teach, in the Bible, that Christians are to go to some heaven? The Bible says, "Our Father who art in heaven," and, "No one gets to the Father except through Him." That's probably where Christians get the idea about Heaven and how to get there. The idea of ascending to "Heaven" is a ubiquitous notion in ancient religions predating Christianity by thousands of years. The pyramids in Egypt were built to facilitate the ascension of pharaohs into "Heaven" to join Horus, who was the son of Amen-Ra. The way to the Father was through the Son.
Huh! Thanks for this information. What happened to those who couldn't afford a pyramid? Wherever I'm going, I'll be there instantly, so cremation is the plan for my husk.
Here's a statue of Isis (the virgin) holding Horus, the son of God. Does it remind you of anyone?
I agree with you. Biblical literalists are the ultimate idolaters: Bibliolaters. They worship the literal text rather than following the spiritual meaning and teachings. It's not surprising that many Fundies also tend to be Zionists, which is basically idolatry of a piece of land.
I've been looking for the table of contents of the Bible 'in scripture' as opposed to the minutes of a Council of Catholic Bishops for years, but I haven't found it yet. Perhaps you can find me a table of contents from scripture itself?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I thought I had posted this earlier, before I went to town, but it didn't 'take'. This provides a little more info regarding crosses and crucifying. From the International STandard Bible Enclyclopedia: CROSS (ÃıÅÁ¿Â, stauros, “a cross,” “the crucifixion”; ú¿»¿È, skolops, “a stake,” “a pole”): The name is not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language it is stauros, but sometimes we find the word skolops used as its Greek equivalent. The historical writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word. 1. Forms of the Cross The cross occurs in at least four different forms: (1) The form usually seen in pictures, the crux immissa, in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece; this is most likely the type of cross on which the Saviour died, as may be inferred from the inscription which was nailed above His head; (2) The crux commissa, or Anthony's cross, which has the shape of the letter T; (3) The Greek cross of later date, in which the pieces are equally long; (4) The crux decussata, or Andrew's cross, which has the shape of the letter X. 2. Discovery of the True Cross The early church historians Socrates (1, 17), Sozomen (2, 1), Rufinus (1, 7) and Theodoret (1, 18) all make mention of this tradition. The most significant thing is that Eusebius (Vit. Const., iii.26-28), who carries more weight than they all together, wholly omits it. According to it, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, in 325 ad, when she was 79 years old, discovered the true cross of Jesus by an excavation she caused to be made on the traditional spot of His grave. With the cross of the Saviour were found the two crosses of the malefactors who were crucified with Him. A miracle of healing, wrought by touching the true cross, revealed its identity. When found it was intact, even the holy nails of the crucifixion being discovered. The main part of the cross was deposited by Helena in a church erected over the spot. Of the remainder, a portion was inserted into the head of the statue of Constantine, and the balance was placed in a new church, specially erected for it at Rome and named after it Santa Croce. Small fragments of the wood of the true cross were sold, encrusted with gold and jewels, and since many among the wealthy believers were desirous of possessing such priceless relics, the miracle of the “multiplication of the cross” was devised, so that the relic suffered no diminution “et quasi intacta maneret” (Paulinus epistle 11 ad Sev). Fragments of the true cross are Thus to be found in many Roman Catholic churches of many countries, all over Christendom. It is said that the East celebrated the staurosimos hemera (Crucifixion Day) on September 14, since the 4th century. The evidence for this fact is late and untrustworthy. It is certain that the West celebrated the Invention of the Cross, on May 3, since the time of Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The finding and publication of the apocryphal “Doctrina Addaei” has made it evident that the entire legend of the discovery of the cross by Helena is but a version of the old Edessa legend, which tells of an identical discovery of the cross, under the very same circumstances, by the wife of the emperor Claudius, who had been converted to Christianity by the preaching of Peter. 3. Symbolical Uses of the Cross (1) Extra-Scriptural The sign of the cross was well known in the symbolics of various ancient nations. Among the Egyptians it is said to have been the symbol of divinity and eternal life, and to have been found in the temple of Serapis. It is known either in the form of the Greek cross or in the form of the letter “T”. The Spaniards found it to be well known, as a symbol, by the Mexicans and Peruvians, perhaps signifying the four elements, or the four seasons, or the four points of the compass. (2) Scriptural The suffering implied in crucifixion naturally made the cross a symbol of pain, distress and burden-bearing. Thus Jesus used it Himself (Mat_10:38; Mat_16:24). In Paulinic literature the cross stands for the preaching of the doctrine of the Atonement (1Co_1:18; Gal_6:14; Phi_3:18; Col_1:20). It expresses the bond of unity between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph_2:16), and between the believer and Christ, and also symbolizes sanctification (Gal_5:24). The cross is the center and circumference of the preaching of the apostles and of the life of the New Testament church. 4. Crucifixion As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal_3:13; compare Deu_21:23), hence, it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. “Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears” (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ, I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5, 66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that “even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited” (BJ, V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita, 75). Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil. xiii.12). The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (Mar_15:44). The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (Joh_19:34) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony. See BLOOD AND WATER.
We know from history that over 3000 accused Hebrew zealots were executed on the same hill where Jesus is said to have died. They used crucifixion, but it was not like the version seen in most Christian churches. The cross was the top of a T bar cross. It fitted upon a pole that stood there as the bottom part of the T structure. The person to be executed was nailed through the wrists to the top bar of the T section, then the top bar was hoisted upon the bottom of the T section - the pole. The pole was permanent. The T cross piece was removed and reused for the next person to be executed. If Jesus was executed by the Romans, he was likely crucified as described above, on a T bar cross.
Here's your lake 'o fire. Now, the poster who I shall not name is missing for nearly a year which leads me to believe either the Rapture has already happened and he made the cut, or his whereabouts was discovered by the men in white coats.
Jesus is the personification of the sun, or the sun anthropomorphized. He's the sun of god, the light of the world, who has risen. Christianity has its roots in the worship of the heavens. This is why Christians believe that when they die they will go to "heaven" with God's sun. They'll be coming for you after dark, heretic, but you're right.
Because GOD IS LOVE!! Yeah, but don't piss him off by geeing when you should have hawed.
All of your religious beliefs are OPINIONS. And that's a FACT. You worship dogma you've been taught. We worship knowledge, information, and logic. It's a FACT that you cannot prove there is a God or that Jesus ever lived.
Scientology and Mormon religions are built around works of fiction, so why not use LOTR to start one? It would make more sense than the bullshit Mormons and Scientologists believe.
I think the evidence that someone named Jesus existed is pretty good.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If you ever do nearly as much reading as I do/have done, then you can mention it. Not until. I started with the Bible long after I read hundreds of books. Found out it was the only place with the information I needed. As to the above; The Bible says, "Our Father who art in heaven," and, "No one gets to the Father except through Him." The first is a prayer, and the second has nothing to do with going to heaven, so what is your point? The last part you got at least partly correct, but you did not go to the correct source, which is Babylon. If you want to understand more, start with the book, The Two Babylons. Then, do a net search for December 25th and the son of god Nimrod Istar. There are several more parts of this as well. The point being that Nimrod is the god mentioned in this search and in most of the religions that follow Babylon, only under different names.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Horus. Jesus. Same stories with variations. The problem with arguing with religious types is they are so ignorant of anything except the echo chamber they live in, and the dogmatized myths that they accept uncritically, no matter how illogical or absurd. If they had ever read any history that wasn't fouled with religious nonsense, they'd know that nothing about the Jesus story is original - particularly not his famous Sermon on the Mount. That's why I don't argue with them any more, just ridicule them like I would a person who believes in the tooth fairy.
You think is right. You don't know, and there is very little evidence he did. Perhaps you're influenced by your religious beliefs. That's what usually makes people believe religious stories. From a historical point of view, there is simply no credible evidence.
My first three degrees are in Classics (Greek and Latin). I studied a lot of ancient (mostly non-Christian) literature and history. So I'm familiar with documents of the time. And the evidence that someone named Jesus existed is stronger than that for the existence of a lot of ancient persons whose historicity is undoubted.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Thank you. You are absolutely correct. It is idolatry. They worship their own versions and interpretations of the Bible. The funniest part is that every generation is CONVINCED that it understands the Bible better than any other before it, and that ITS interpretation is really THE ONE. Such incredible smugness, just the type Jesus routinely scorned.
You have no proof Jesus ever existed, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding. I don't care if the Pope gave you a letter of recommendation, your history is weak, weak, weak. I'm familiar with the documents of the time, too, and that's why I know they do not mention Jesus, except for one very dubious reference made at least 30 years after he is alleged to have died. Stop acting like you have a secret stash of historical info. You're bullshitting and calling it part of your education. I'm not going to recite my curriculum vitae.
There are a couple of papyrus fragments of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that seem to antedate the First Jewish Rebellion and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Jesus Papyrus.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Then I'm sure you are familiar with this guy: …if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[73] - Michael Grant
Matthew and Mark are both based upon another unidentified source, commonly call Q. Mark was written circa 65 BCE, before Matthew, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died.
This is how religions get started. The difference between a group of mad hatters and a religion is largely time and the aggregate number who follow the beliefs.
Not trying to be facetious, but the words "crucifix" and "crucify" are formed from the root cruc, meaning a cross. (In automotive lingo, a chassis that has an X-shaped support is termed "cruciform".) Had they just nailed Jesus to a post, I think they would have used a different word.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
I started with the Bible long after I read hundreds of books. Found out it was the only place with the information I needed. You found out it was the only place with information you needed? How did you find this out? Was it through the power of the holy spirit? The first is a prayer, and the second has nothing to do with going to heaven, so what is your point? You asked me where the Bible says that Christians are going to Heaven. I showed you. What difference does it make what context it's in? Christians believe in Heaven and that they're going there. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe that. Either they read it somewhere or somebody told them. In either case, they blindly believed it. ...you did not go to the correct source, which is Babylon. You need to go further back. Sun mythology and the worship of the heavens predates Babylon and Nimrod.
I appreciate the Jesus story for its inspirational and literary value. If he didn't live and die for his beliefs, he should have. Myth or reality, this song still has meaning for me.
Well at least ya won't have to drag a sleeping bag there.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
That is the conventional dating of the gospels, which was developed before these papyrus fragments turned up. Science is supposed to alter its views to cope with conflicting data.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[73] - Michael Grant Yes, I've read several books by Michael Grant. I'm glad to see he had the same opinion I do. (I use the past tense because I discover from Wikipedia that he died in 2004.)
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Right, but the NT was written in Corinthian (not Latin) and the word used in Galatians 3:1 is estauromenos. (I may be using aristeides' Greek-German Testament here by Nestle. Luther also says "am Holz" in 3:13.) "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you". estauromenos is a passive form of stauros. All the definitions of the forms of stauros in my Greek dictionary are (I) stake, pole, pallisade, pale, to fence, and always secondarily (II) cross, to crucify. One might reasonably wonder whether or not this translation was a later emendation on the original meaning, since the cross was not a common Christian symbol until some hundreds of years had passed after the time of Christ.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
I'll address the quotation in reverse. First, I will consider it a challenge offered by you and others to prove that there is a God and that Jesus ever lived (though I don't think His name was Jesus Christ). I accept that challenge, and will put together a post in the near future on the subject. (Of necessity, it will take some time to put together a work of sufficient completeness as to be offered as "evidence" or "proof") Second, IF you truly DO "worship" knowledge, information, and logic - then perhaps you will USE those things in your consideration of the "presentation" I put together. I will ping you, Alan, and the others on this thread whom I think you are referring to in the "We" part of your quote when I get my presentation posted. Then the ball will be in your hands. Will you read the presentation I put together with an open mind, or will you just summarily dismiss it as BS before you even give it critical thought? Scripture is fascinating, and it speaks for itself. There is no lack of historical documentation which "backs it up". That is why I think that although you are evidently very intelligent and quite learned - you have never put much if ANY time into serious STUDY of Scripture, and have formed your opinions concerning the subject in the same way religious practitioners formed theirs - by relying on what others "claim" Scripture says without "doing the digging" to find out. Those that do this fall into one of two camps. They either: But PLEASE don't categorize me as being of that first group just because I believe Scripture is correct...
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Science is supposed to alter its views to cope with conflicting data. You said papyrus discovered showed docs prior to 70 AD. I replied that we have long known Mark was written around 65 AD, so that's not news. It's still not news.
It reminds me of the average American sucking off the teat of government.
You and every other religious person in America thinks he's got it right. This is not news, but evidence of your perfectly formed circle of self delusion. You guys always claim you've really got it figured out. You're blinded by your own dogma. You always think no one has ever read the scriptures the way you have. You believe the scriptures are correct. As far as I'm concerned, you might as be saying you think the Lord of the Rings is a true story and a real place. Accept it. People a lot brighter and more informed than you about history and religion don't buy the theory of the Bible you do. It's not what you believe it is, and it's not the word of God. It's a library of books, many of them stolen from other cultures and religions.
In other words, all the people who use the government's tax exemption to propagate their religious nonsense, or who have faith based programs partially funded by government.
So let's make this short and sweet and quit all the bullshit and beating around the bush. When push comes to shove what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't believe in your interpretation of the Bible is doomed to hell for all eternity. Ok. Thank you very much for that bit of information. It's truly groundbreaking. I've never heard it put this way before. /extreme sarcasm What makes your interpretation any more valid than any other Protestant denominations, or the Catholic interpretation for that matter? Does God talk to you while you sleep? Does he send you e-mails? Just what makes you so righteous that you have the authority to tell anyone what the Bible phrases do and do not mean? Personally I find that to be extremely arrogant and audacious.
What difference does it make what context it's in? It makes all the difference in the world!!! What you quoted from the Bible does NOT say that Christians are going to Heaven - even if they falsely use these verses as a basis for their beliefs. Your attitude of taking Scripture "out of context not mattering" is exactly HOW they came to their erroneous beliefs in the first place. Now you've hit the nail squarely on the head... Also read my reply to PR - #54
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Yes, among others.
Show me a government program to help someone, and I'll show you a place where scoundrels are sucking the marrow out of the bones of those same people to be helped. It's a boondoggle.
Thank you. This is what I love about modern Christianity in the United States. No matter where you find them, no matter how isolated or ignorant their lives are, each and every one of them is certain that God has his or her church on speed dial. Yeah, God is closer to them than to anyone in the universe, because those 107 people that live in Budafuck, USA and go to the All Gospel Bible Church are hooked into God. You are so jealous God loves them and they are so very special. You should die and burn in hell for eternity.
LOL! You are so jealous God loves them and they are so very special. yes, well I guess it's just a burden I will have to carry. You should die and burn in hell for eternity. Well if the author of this thread is any indication, I'm sure I will.
Amen and pass the gravy!
Jesus wants to burn you for eternity because HE LOVES YOU. Long before George Orwell used the term doublethink, Christians invented it.
Give me that old time religion! Give me that old time school vouchers! Give me that old time 501(c)(3)! It's good enough for me! Your modern church is more worried about their IRS status than any spiritual issue.
And to ensure that we are all on the right path to glory, He has allowed the creation of more than 38000 Protestant denominations worldwide and another half dozen or so Catholic denominations.
I take this reply to mean that you WILL summarily dismiss the "presentation" I spoke of as BS before ever seeing it. Not surprising. BTW, how do you KNOW what "I believe the Bible is"? I think that first and foremost it is a law book, and that the worst thing that ever happened to it was that "religions" got their hands on it - just like the worst thing that ever happened to law was that "lawyers" got their hands on it.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. i look forward to that.
In other words, all the people who use the government's tax exemption to propagate their religious nonsense, or who have faith based programs partially funded by government. As well as those enrolled in the Social Security ponzy scheme; the various licensing schemes; the Federal Reserve, banking, stock market and related schemes, and the various "welfare" schemes.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Right on!!!!! This one we wholeheartedly agree on!
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Holy books never function well as the law books of a society. That's why, no matter what the religion, people or their rulers institute civil government. The Islamists are walking down that road in a fever of shariah absolutism, and it's not going to end well for them. They are walking into a trap of their own making. The same can be said of our homegrown mullahs.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
That may well be, but if that's the case it's because those "holy books" are not authentic as to being inspired by The Creator. That issue is at the heart of the "presentation" I will be putting together.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Well, that should be interesting. When do you plan to post his? I want to see the fireworks.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? What are the morning stars? What are the sons of God? What is the Pleiades, the bands of Orion, and Arcturus with his sons? What is Mazzaroth? It's all very simple if you do a little research and use a little common sense.
that's the crux. whether or not you or anyone believe the bible is the word of God. it ultimately comes down to that faith.
Ow, that hurt. That will be four hundred dollars, please. Hahaha!
And now they won't disclose the money supply, because they KNOW it is off the chart.
Archaeologists unveil ancient church in Israel What's that on the floor? It looks like two fish to me.
What point are you trying to make with the two fish in the mosaic? I also see Greek letters in the lower r/h corner....... Early christians met in private homes for a long time. Paul invariably went to the synagogues first; and then when tossed out or unreceptiveness was met, he would meet with gentiles anywhere--even by river banks. There were no 'church buildings' such as one thinks of churches today. Church did not mean a building. But I'm interested in the 'fish' connection with what is being discussed here. Thanx
The two fish represents the Age of Pisces. Jesus is said to have fed his followers with two fish. Pisces is an astrological symbol of the Zodiac. There are many astrological references in the Bible. For instance, Job 38:32 says, "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?" The word "Mazzaroth" actually means Zodiac. The other passages I referenced in an earlier post deal with astrological symbolism. They talk about planets and stars and how they affect events on Earth, hence the "sweet influences." The "morning stars" are quite possibly the planets Venus and Mercury. The Pleiades, the bands of Orion, and Arcturus and his sons are stars in the night sky.
Looks like someone was entering in the age of Pisces. Which is what they were doing. With a new story to carry the 2000 year age, the timeless story of the earth, its sun, and its annual journey.
I was looking for the significance of the two fish as it relates to the story of the cross as richard's thread is about. I know about the bread and fishes; and I understand about astronomy, constellations, and the like. There's an interesting little booklet titled something like "Glory of the Stars' that deals with ancient constellation meanings, symbolism, etc. Thanx
You may want to start charging in gold or Euros or something. "That will be ½ oz of gold" has a nice ring to it doesn't it? I like charging in silver - I like the "way it feels in my hand".
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. 30 pieces of silver sounds about right for this job I can't believe the Loonie is worth more than the dollar. Way to go, federal money managers!
No kidding!!! One thing sure isn't "off the chart" about the money supply though - it's purchasing power.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. True. They can't "fix" the exchange rate and they can't "fix" buying power of a dollar.
HAHAHAHA Did you see where the dollar index is sitting now? 77.31!!! Gravity sure has a firm grip on the dollar. That chart looks like a California mudslide.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. And you think all these stories about the life of a mythical person who never existed were put into circulation at a time when plenty of people were still around who remembered what was going on in Jerusalem, Judaea, and Galilee at the time the mythical person supposedly lived?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Apparently you've never heard of the Mormon religion or Scientology. You really should check them out. Religions don't need facts. I hope there was a man like Jesus, who actually repeated the lessons he had learned from other cultures and tried to get his ignorant Hebrew tribesmen to abandon their silly rituals and accept a truly spiritual outlook. There's no proof. If you believe it, you likely believe it because it is essential to your maintenance of your belief that your religion matters.
I do not claim that there is conclusive proof that Jesus existed, merely that the evidence that he existed is as good as it is for many figures of ancient history, and that it is considerably more likely than not that he existed.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I know. You think if you say your opinion repeatedly, it becomes more than your opinion. It doesn't. YOU THINK Jesus was real, because YOU NEED to believe he was. Accept it.
Goldi-Lox and Yukon?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Whereas you keep saying that, if the existence of Jesus can't be proved beyond a doubt, people should act as if he never existed. I'm not terribly religious, by the way. I'm trying to judge this matter by the standards of ancient historians. Did you notice the quote from Michael Grant earlier in this thread?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That's the quote from Michael Grant. You will see that he was saying, while he was still alive, pretty much the same thing I'm saying in this thread.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You will see from this link, So Just What Do Classical Historians Make of the New Testament Documents?, that Michael Grant was not the only distinguished ancient historian who has taken the New Testament documents seriously as historical sources. Here's a summary of scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth theory that Jesus never existed: Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth: After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Wikipedia article on the subject, Historicity of Jesus, concludes: The unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[74],[75] & [76].
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Here is a link to a website that has a chart listing all sorts of writings from olden times through the Bible, providing numbers of originals or copies used, dates, and Accuracy. Interesting to note that the Bible is more accurate in translation than Homer. Where are all the anti-Homer folks? I tried to copy this chart over to here, but it all ran together making it unreadable. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry is the web site.
Actually, it's not clear that a poet named Homer ever existed (although, obviously, some person or persons must have composed the Iliad, Odyssey, and Homeric Hymns.) On the other hand, the evidence is pretty strong that a person named Jesus actually existed.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
(2.) I'm not terribly religious, by the way. I'm trying to judge this matter by the standards of ancient historians. (3.) Did you notice the quote from Michael Grant earlier in this thread? 1. I've never said that. You should know the difference being something that is proven and something that is speculated. You continue to attempt to recharacterize what I say so that it fits whatever straw man you're trying to erect. While you were getting that classical education, didn't they teach you how to write a sentence without including completely unnecessary commas? There's no comma between "that" and "if." 2. No, you're not trying to judge it by the standards of ancient historians. You're trying to bogart your way past the fact that you have no proof Jesus was ever born, so you believe what you want to believe. And contrary to your statement, you're more than a little bit religious. Just admit that you think of yourself as a Christian, and you believe the story of Jesus because you have faith, not proof. 3. Unlike you, I don't try to prove something that is factual by giving the opinion someone has given which happens to agree with mine. Try logic and facts. They work a lot better than quoting someone whose opinion you think matters.
You're queer for that guy. So what? He's your authority, but he's just another ass clown with an opinion.
Dude, get a grip. You're having another OCD episode. You've quoted the same guy and the same source four or five times now. He's full of shit and you're even more full of shit than he is.
The lives of other important figures like that of Socrates are often trotted out in discussions like this because many people believe that there are significant & fundamental differences between the source documents that we rely onto demonstrate the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and those written during the life of Socrates that refer to his acts and words. Many of us believe in the historicity of Socrates because 1) The source documents, as previously mentioned, were written by contemporaries, during his lifetime or not long after his execution. 2) There are no references to miraculous events attributed to the subject of these writings that cause readers to doubt their objectivity, and 3) Although the sources for Socrates are fewer in number, the sources that we do have for him are in camps both sympathetic and antagonistic to him. I wonder, aristeides, aside from your reverence for your friend, Grant, how you feel about the relative veracity and reliability of the Paul & the Gospels vs. Xenophon, Plato and Arisophanes. My mind is always open to new perspectives.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
So you don't like Michael Grant. I wonder if you followed the links I gave you. They cited several very distinguished sources in addition to Michael Grant. Can you name a single ancient historian who agrees with your position?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Wikipedia article I give the link to in #98 cites several non-Christian ancient sources. If you look, for example, at the Tacitus passage, you will not find any sympathy with Christ or Christians.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Plato seems to have written a generation or more after the death of Socrates. That's more distant from Socrates's death than Paul's epistles and the early Gospels are from Christ's.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I wonder, aristeides, aside from your reverence for your friend, Grant I never met Grant, although I have read several of his books. I wouldn't say I actually revere him. I do respect him. He was a very gifted popularizer of scholarship, and that talent is worthy of respect. In this case, however, I know his position is that of almost all if not all ancient historians, including some who are very unfriendly to Christianity.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You claim to be a lawyer, do you not? I think that means being able to judge evidence. If all ballistics experts were to agree that a bullet was fired by a certain weapon, and you were unable to find a single expert who disagreed, what would you conclude?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Are you claiming Joseph Smith did not exist? Are you claiming L. Ron Hubbard did not exist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So, was Christ hanged on a cross, a post, or what?
Does it really matter?
Dumber people than me have done it.
Exactly - good grief.
You claim to be a college graduate, do you not? You should know how to write better if you are. I have judged your evidence. You're a typical Bible thumper. I make you for a retired government employee. Post Office? Social Security? HUD?
I'm claiming the angel Moroni never existed. I'm claiming the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, like much of your Bible. I'm claiming the stories Joseph Smith told, like many of those told by early Christians, are either made up or stolen from other sources. You're not very familiar with anything outside your flavor of Christianity, are you?
That's more distant from Socrates's death than Paul's epistles and the early Gospels are from Christ's. Very good points. I hope that this thread runs a while because I hope to see someone illuminate the topic of the historicity of Jesus' life in a meaningful way, one way or another. I'll admit that I have a materialist point of view that I grew up with that makes it hard for me to accept the miraculous part of Jesus' story as given in the Gospels. I tend to view Jesus as a synthetic figure in whom are blended the features of so many of the gods or heros that came before him and in whom may be found the words and deeds of Jewish sages that preceded him by not all too many years. I assure you, however, that I have an entirely open mind on the subject and when you cite and authority like Grant, it would be nice if you would at least capsule the essence of his argument or provide a link. Guess I'll have to do a little research myself here. (BTW, when I said, "your friend, Grant" I was only being figurative. Not trying to bait you, sir.)
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
Some of us prefer not to view our history through the prism of FAITH and Religious Dogma. Writers who lived during the time Jesus supposedly lived, leaving extensive written historic works, none mentioning Jesus once: Arrian, Plutarch, Apollonius, Hermogones, Appian, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Appion of Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, Petronius, Juvenal, Quintilian, Silius Italicus, Phlegon, Pausanias, Dio Chrysostom, Favorinus, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Martial, Lucanus, Statius, Phaedrus, Florus Lucius, Columella, Lysias, Theon of Myrna, Pliny the Elder, Paterculus, Persius, Justus of Tiberius, Epictetus, Ptolemy, Valerius Maximus, Quintius Curtius, Valerius Flaccus, and Pomponius Mela. Modern writers who do not believe Jesus is a historic figure. Prof. Arthur Drews of Karlsruhe, Charles F. Dupuis, Robert Taylor, David F. Strauss, Kersey Graves, John M. Robertson, Thomas Whittaker, Robert Arthur Drews, Peter C. A. Jensen, William B. Smith, L. Gordon Rylands, P. L. Couchoud, and John E. Remsburg.
"cross occurs 28 times in 28 verses Cite This Page: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for 'cross' " . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 20 Oct 2007. http://www.blueletterbible.org/c...ords.pl?word=cross&page=1 Strong's concordance: Lexicon Results for stauros (Strong's G4716) Greek for G4716 Outline of Biblical Usage 1) a cross a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent 2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades Cite This Page: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for stauros (Strong's 4716)". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2007. 20 Oct 2007. http:// http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm? Strongs=G4716&Version=kjv richard, have you ever read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew? In it, he talks of the Jews deleting passages from the Bible, including that they would be saved "from the wood". It's not as easy to cut and paste from http://ccel.org anymore, but here is one reference from another site: Chapter 138. Noah is a figure of Christ, who has regenerated us by water, and faith, and wood: [i.e., the cross.] "You know, then, sirs," I said, "that God has said in Isaiah to Jerusalem: 'I saved you in the deluge of Noah.' By this which God said was meant that the mystery of saved men appeared in the deluge. For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the deluge, i.e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead, for ever the first in power. For Christ, being the first-born of every creature, became again the chief of another race regenerated by Himself through water, and faith, and wood, containing the mystery of the cross; even as Noah was saved by wood when he rode over the waters with his household. Accordingly, when the prophet says, 'I saved you in the times of Noah,' as I have already remarked, he addresses the people who are equally faithful to God, and possess the same signs. For when Moses had the rod in his hands, he led your nation through the sea. And you believe that this was spoken to your nation only, or to the land. But the whole earth, as the Scripture says, was inundated, and the water rose in height fifteen cubits above all the mountains: so that it is evident this was not spoken to the land, but to the people who obeyed Him: for whom also He had before prepared a resting-place in Jerusalem, as was previously demonstrated by all the symbols of the deluge; I mean, that by water, faith, and wood, those who are afore-prepared, and who repent of the sins which they have committed, shall escape from the impending judgment of God. Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 109-142) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm The other relevant passages are these: Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages. Chapter LXXII.—Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah. Chapter LXXIII.—[The words] “From the wood” have been cut out of Ps. xcvi. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html Excerpt: "Chapter LXXIII.—[The words] “From the wood” have been cut out of Ps. xcvi. “And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’22222222 For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.’ Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: ‘Sing...... Here Trypho remarked, “Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.” “Assuredly,” said I, “it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,” said I, “you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us,22242224 Many think, “you.” and shall yet be brought forward.”" http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxiii.html Chapter LXXII.—Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah. And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’22192219 It is not known where this passage comes from. And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’22202220 Jer. xi. 19. And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies 235 [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’2221" Chapter LXXII.—Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxii.html "standard" I like that word: Isa 49:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in [their] arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon [their] shoulders. Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. Isa 62:10 Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people. [Isa 62:11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward [is] with him, and his work before him. Isa 62:12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.] more: Cite This Page: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for 'standard' " . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 21 Oct 2007. http://www.blueletterbible.org/c...s.pl?word=standard&page=1 Strong's concordance "standard" Lexicon Results for nec (Strong's H5251) Hebrew for H5251 Outline of Biblical Usage 1) something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail a) standard (as rallying point), signal b) standard (pole) c) ensign, signal see the rest: Cite This Page: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for nec (Strong's 05251)". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2007. 20 Oct 2007. http:// http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm? Strongs=H05251&Version=kjv His standard here since 1607: Cape Henry Memorial - Plan Your Visit (U.S. National Park Service) They built a wooden cross and planted it in the sand naming the place Cape Henry. This is the first landing site of those adventurous Englishmen who, ... http://www.nps.gov/came/planyourvisit/index.htm
The lessons Jesus is alleged to have taught are important. It is not important whether he lived or not. It is the bundle of decent principles he is quoted as addressing that make him important, not the ridiculous religion people like the Apostle Paul and an army of Catholic Bishops created, or the beast that exists today as modern Christendom. I reject religion, including Christianity. I accept the positive lessons Jesus is said to have taught, and am a lot more dedicated to them than most Christians, because the essence of the Christian is a belief in worship and mythology. If Jesus lived, he certainly would not want all the rampant ass kissing directed at him so many Christians routinely perform in public. I support the programs that represent the ideals Jesus is alleged to have espoused, things like programs for criminals and their families, like programs for underage at risk pregnant girls, like programs to help criminals learn how not to be criminals, like food for poor people, like health care for poor people. Not one dime of my money, or the money of the charities I support, go to pay administrative costs. Every dime goes to the costs of some direct action, whether it's helping a family relocated from Katrina, or buying Christmas for the destitute families of prisoners. Most religious people are consumed with ritual, with the entirely manufactured parts of religion, which is to say most of religion. Each has some vision of their God, and instead of focusing on the actual teachings of Jesus, for example, they dwell on something they read from the Old Testament, or from the mad hatter of Christianity, the original Log Cabin Republican, the Apostle Paul aka Saul of Taursus.
Has anyone here ever looked into the Essenes? Yes. I think Jesus, if he lived, was probably of the Essenes. I think there may have been a teacher, a rabbi, who was a model for the Jesus story. Or he could have been a composite, with lessons built around the elements of the ancient sun myth. The story of Jesus fits the astro theology requirements of the sun myth, but it also includes many lessons which are found in texts as early as The Epic of Gilgamesh, before Abraham ever had his first close encounter. The Gnostic gospels, including those of Mary Magdalene, are important because they prove that early Christians were much more Eastern in their philosophies than the constipated Catholics who would expunge the gnostics from the Bible.
Ari said little to nothing about the story of Jesus that I can recall. From what I remember is that he, correctly, pointed out that there is actual historical data from several disparate sorces naming a personage that very well matches Jesus and his time. I view this as history, debatable sure, but history. Did a man that inspired the writer's of the gospels existed? Something must had moved them to write the ancient text, it seems to me. Did other such men exist whose good works affected the thinking of men, yet whose personal histories were forever lost? I say Yes. Heck Yes.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
Oh come on Paul. That's no way to have a discussion. Here at least. I am excited by the idea to talk about the flaws of of the church, for they are, to me, Legion, and the divergence of what Christ taught and what passes for "christian thinking" by the Newt's of the world.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
If you want to discuss something of substance, then do so, but keep your chiding to yourself.
Yes, being an asshole makes you right - and if people don't see that, then are stupid. You tell them!
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Let's not forget ... the children. Can we please all get along for the sake of the children? Someone's praying, Lord ....
The facts related to the existence or non-existence of Jesus Christ may be forth coming, the fact that Revere is an arrogant asshole is immediate.
"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins
Never heard of a one of them. I asked for the name of an ancient historian. Correction: on consideration, I think I have heard of two of them. L. Gordon Rylands was an early 20th-century papyrologist, if I am not mistaken. And David F. Strauss was a French Biblical scholar of the mid-19th century. So I guess you have established that there have been a few scholars who have adopted your view. Further correction: David Friedrich Strauss was German, not French. (Renan was the Frenchman I was thinking of.) However, while Strauss denied the divinity of Christ and maintained the miracles in the New Testament are mythical, he did not deny the historical reality of Christ. Far from it. In fact, he seems to have been the first to have written about the "historical Jesus." I wonder how many of the other people on your list don't belong there.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I'm claiming the stories Joseph Smith told, like many of those told by early Christians, are either made up or stolen from other sources. But what you're denying is just just the truth of the Bible, but the very existence of the founder of Christianity. If Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard had not existed, there wouldn't be any Mormonism or Scientology around, now, would there? You keep accusing me of having some ulterior motive for insisting that it is probable that someone named Jesus existed. But it is you who is showing a strange passion on the subject, even after I have shown you that scholars in general regard your view as irrational and disreputable.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Ive not been following all of your replies but was the extra-biblical writings of Josephus mentioned? Although I remember reading one of the passages are in question not sure if all are though.
I have provided links above. Look at the Wikipedia entry, for example.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
There's controversy about the authenticity of the passage or passages in Josephus (I don't even know enough about the matter to know whether or not there is more than one of them.) A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians. I've never made a study of the matter, so I can't speak authoritatively. (You'd need to know esoteric matters like the manuscript history of the text of Josephus.) It's for that sort of reason that I've been relying on scholarly authorities here, instead of trying to offer opinions of my own.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's been quite a few years since I've read the texts by Josephus.. looking at the entry in Wiki seems not a good source as far as the mention of Jesus.. thx carry on ! :P
I reject religion, including Christianity. I accept the positive lessons Jesus is said to have taught, and am a lot more dedicated to them than most Christians, because the essence of the Christian is a belief in worship and mythology. If Jesus lived, he certainly would not want all the rampant ass kissing directed at him so many Christians routinely perform in public. Ever stop to consider that there might be some connection between your rejection of religion and the sort of character you exhibit in your postings?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That's more distant from Socrates's death than Paul's epistles and the early Gospels are from Christ's. And Herodotus is our only source for a lot of historical events and persons from a couple of generations (or even longer, up to a century or two) before he wrote his history. Historians generally only doubt details in Herodotus's account, not the existence of the people. The lives of Alexander contain a lot of fantastic details that nobody accepts as fact. That doesn't make people doubt the existence of Alexander.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
My, what tact you exhibit! Do you think that sort of language will persuade anybody? Is that an example of the reasoning you use in court?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Well, thanks aristeides for the link. Unfortunately, your link has about as much to say about Grant's arguments in favor of the historicity of the Gospels & the life of Jesus as this morning's Krogers receipt. I've spent the better part of an hour today surfing for the outlines of Grant's thinking on the subject and came up with little more than the quotes that you gave us above reiterated a dozen times. Guess I'll have to buy his books to see where this gentleman was at. Like I say, my mind is always open to new (& old) ideas), but I still want to know, "Where's the Beef?
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
It matters that Jesus Christ lived--and died. God is a living God. Whether you like that, or accept it, or hate it is of little consequence to anyone, but you- -except for the fact that as a follower of Christ, I would prefer to see you obtain eternal life. The ideal would be for all to have eternal life. But His teachings tell us that He is the truth, the light, the way. Upon what do you base your assertion that Paul is a 'mad hatter'?
You're wrong again, as usual. Jesus had NOTHING to do with the creation of Christianity.
About this statement, you are correct.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
About this statement, you are correct. If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You can't be that stupid.
You're wrong again, as usual. Jesus had NOTHING to do with the creation of Christianity. When you can't win the argument, change the subject. Because you've lost the argument about whether Jesus existed, you change the subject to whether he founded Christianity.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Another example of your superb manners. Do you really believe such behavior is going to persuade or impress anybody? If I had manners like yours, I might say something about stupidity myself. I notice, by the way, how you've had nothing to say about how I've shown you were precisely wrong about the views of David Friedrich Strauss.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Jesus had nothing do with the creation of Christianity. That was done by fools who can't fathom spiritual matters, who can only understand silly rituals, and fumbling with beads, and worshipping idols, and thinking they've got it figured out. The fact that you think Jesus created Christianity demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of early history or how Christianity was created. You think that if you say something enough it becomes true. It doesn't. You're just another religious fool, stuck in first gear.
Nagging is your primary arguing tool, and I can see why, since you've got nothing else. And you'll keep nagging on this, and I'll keep telling you to go fuck yourself.
Is that an example of the reasoning you use in court? Let me explain this in simple terms, so there's a possibility it might be understood by you. This is a conversation about a topic. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I don't care what your opinion is, but when you state things as if they're fact and I know they're not, I'm going to call you a liar and a fool, if not both. This is also not a court of law. If it were, I would be there and you wouldn't, because you couldn't beat a first year lawyer in court. Admit it. You've never even tried a case, and couldn't cross examine a witness if your life depended on it. Since I've won a number of multi million dollar jury verdicts, I think that's very good evidence my persuasive abilities and demeanor in court are just fine. Now how many jury trials have you won, professor NOBODY?
Why would they be inclined to write about a 'nobody' from the Galilee? He wasn't born to notable parents, he wasn't a part of some rebellion, or uprising, nor did he 'discover' some star, or some piece of high technology, nor was he a part of any ruling class or community.
About this statement, you are correct. ======================================= If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed? The Pharisees think He existed: Who Was Jesus? The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this ... www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm : Who Was Jesus? The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls. To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). This is the reason that verse 1 commands us not to add or subtract any details from the Law, and verse 5 warns us to remain steadfast with all the traditions of the Law. In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man. In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39). The man known today as "Jesus" fulfilled all these prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church) who changed the original Law, doing away with the Hebrew calendar and the Biblical holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkos the Festival of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.). He disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin. Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament": 1. Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.] 2. He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26). 3. He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26). 4. 4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.] 5. Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45). The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene": 1. He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a). 2. He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a). 3. He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh—which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b). The false, rebellious message of Jesus has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish people, as G-d commanded. Unfortunately, however, this same message has brought a terrible darkness upon the world; today, over 1.5 billion gentiles believe in Jesus. These lost souls mistakenly think they have found salvation in Jesus; tragically, they are in for a rude awakening. Truth and eternal life are found directly from G-d, through performing His Law. Any "mediator" only separates man from G-d: 1. "G-d is not a man, who can lie, nor the son of man, who relents... He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen perverseness in Israel" (Numbers 23:19). 2. Speaking prophetically of the Christian church, Moses declared, "For their 'rock' is not like our Rock... Where is their god, in whom they trusted?" (Deut. 32:31, 37). 3. "'See now that I, only I, am He, and there is no god with Me. I kill, and I bring to life; I wound, and I heal, and there is none who can rescue from My Hand...' Sing songs of joy, gentiles, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and will take vengeance on His enemies, and will forgive His land and His people" (Deut. 32:39, 43). 4. "I, only I am Hashem (the L-rd), and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:11). 5. "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any" (Isaiah 44:6). 6. "Israel is saved in Hashem with an eternal salvation... Assemble yourselves and come, come near together, you gentiles who have escaped [the judgment]. (They have no knowledge, those who carry wooden sculptures and who pray to a god that does not save.) Announce and bring near, even take counsel together: Who declared this from ancient times, and announced it from then? Is it not I, Hashem? And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else. By Myself I swore, a righteous word went out of my mouth and it will not be withdrawn, that to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear" (Isaiah 45:17, 20-23). What is the true key to salvation? Those who return to the Law (the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah, according to the eternal covenant made with Noah in Genesis 9) and who assist the Jewish people (Isaiah 60, 61, 66) will be saved and will participate in the miracles and revelations, including worshipping in the Third Temple, under the kingship of the Messiah. As described in many places, including Jeremiah 16:19-21 and Zechariah 8:20-23, all the old gentile religions of the world will disappear, and their followers will turn to the Jews for spiritual leadership. Until then, Christians are spiritually blinded, and cannot yet understand G-d's wisdom in the Bible. Ours is the last generation of the era of sin and evil and the first of the Messianic Era. Indeed, for the first time in history, there is a growing consensus of leading rabbis willing to name the man most suited to be the Messiah, and they are agreeing that he is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is the spiritual leader of our generation, having boldly stirred up controversy over vital issues in which other leaders have remained tragically silent or have even caved in to the growing forces of darkness. He has upheld the Law perfectly and has worked mightily to strengthen the observance of the Law by Jews, as well as the observance of the Noachide Law by gentiles. Through his teaching of chasidus (Jewish mystical teachings, preserved from Moses and Mount Sinai), he has taught the world that G-d is One, the Infinite Who renews creation at every moment. The Rebbe is a direct descendant of King David and has received a true prophecy from G-d that we who are alive in this generation shall be the first in history to see the coming of the true messiah. Many Jews are eagerly anticipating the Rebbe's resurrection from the grave, ready to re-establish the Sanhedrin and anoint the king. Our job is to finish preparing the way, by announcing the truth and bringing all of mankind back to the Law immediately. Through our divinely mandated efforts, we shall now clear the path for the return of the Garden of Eden and the establishment of the eternal sinless world promised by Isaiah and the other Biblical prophets. ["yeshu" is a derogatory term. Zionist Christians - A Mossad Operation ....Do Zionist Christians Know That The Name Of Jesus Was Changed In Israel?.....Jesus' name in Hebrew had been changed so that it is now an acronym meaning 'Be His Name and Memories Forgotten.' By Reuven Schossen ... www.middleeast.org/forum/fb-public/1/4541.shtml Jesus' Membrum in the Talmud What did the Jewish priests think of Jesus? This information will supplement Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- a must read for serious Christians. www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html
okaaay....been suspicious of that "church" since I saw it last night. closing some windows, but am going to "park" them here until I can study them further.... started with a search "merovee fish" [don't ask me why, 'cause i don't know why] THE SIX~POINTED STAR THE MARK OF THE BEAST PART II HISTORY OF THE SIX-POINTED STAR [fish, merovee, Dagon, etc.] =================== The Roman Eagle (aquila) [Roman eagle, German eagle, Maccabes, Dan, snake, Habsburgs, Charlemagne, ODIN, Gauls, Franks, Celts [***isn't that a celtic knot in that mosaic?], Greeks, German "Kaiser", Russian "Tsar", USA re Roman Empire, etc.] www.chinahistoryforum.com...ion/index.php/t15405.html =========================== **** THE FALSE GOSPEL IN THE STARS PREPARING THE WAY OF THE ANTICHRIST . . .and the False Prophet and 10 kings downsized to 7 and. . . PISCES THE TWO FISHES "....THE TWIN MESSIAHS Gnostics claim to venerate Jesus and John the Baptist as the ‘twin messiahs.’ As Jesus was the “Christ” for the Age of Pisces, John, the Gnostic Christ, will incarnate another messiah for the Age of Aquarius. This is the reason all Grand Masters of the Prieuré de Sion take the name of John (Jean). The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail disclosed that for some time there has been in existence an esoteric papacy as well as the exoteric papacy of the Roman Catholic Church:...." "....Students of Scripture may recognize Oannes as the Philistine god, Dagon, but may not realize that this fish-god is also the ‘beast that rises out of the sea,’ in Rev. 13:1. Dagobert’s Revenge identifies Oannes as ‘Lucifer’ whose fallen angels sired a race of giants, the Nephilim, in Genesis 6: “...Dagon or Oannes, a half-human, half-fish combination who was known as the ‘Lord of the Flood’...was said to rise out of the sea every day to teach his secret knowledge to those who followed him. He is mentioned in Samuel, Chapter 5, when the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant and place it in the Temple of Dagon. Two nights later, ‘Dagon was fallen upon is face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.’ It is this character upon which Satan or Lucifer is based, but the physical description attributed to him applied to an entire race of ‘gods’, or as they were described in the Bible, Nephilim, or Fallen Angels, the ‘Great Old Ones’...” “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose… There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Gen. 6:1-4 Oannes was the same fish-god described in Bloodline of the Holy Grail as the ‘mysterious sea-beast’ which sired Merovee, the Frankish king who founded the Merovingian dynasty. For this reason, **** the Merovingian dynasty were designated “Fisher Kings.” “Despite the carefully listed genealogies of his time, the heritage of Meroveus was strangely obscured in the monastic annals. Although the rightful son of Clodion, he was nonetheless said by the historian Priscus to have been sired by an arcane sea creature, the Bistea Neptunis.. “The Sicambrian Franks, from whose female line the Merovingians emerged were associated with Grecian Arcadia before migrating to the Rhineland. As we have seen, they called themselves the Newmage – ‘People of the New Covenant’, just as the Essenes of Qumran had once been known. It was the Arcadian legacy that was responsible for the mysterious sea beast – the Bistea Neptunis – as symbolically defined in the Merovingian ancestry. The relevant sea-lord was King Pallas, a god of old Arcadia... The immortal sea-lord was said to be ‘ever-incarnate in a dynasty of ancient kings’ whose symbol was a fish – as was the traditional symbol of Jesus.” (pp.166,175) “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy...and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Rev. 13:1-2 In his blasphemous book, The Real Meaning of the Zodiac, D. James Kennedy stated: “In Pisces these fishes are a representation of the Church.” Fred Gettings associated the fish emblem with the so-called “Christian zodiac,” which the Neo-Platonists based on the pagan Zodiac. “In the Christian zodiac, as in the pagan zodiac, the two fishes of Pisces appear to be associated with the idea of the spirit and soul... Whether this Neoplatonic notion did influence the symbolism of Pisces or not, the spiritual nature of the fishes was adapted by the medieval image-makers as relating very distinctly to the spiritual nature of Christ. In any case, from the earliest times, Christ had been linked with the image of the fish. The drawings of fish in the catacombs were symbols for Christ, and a whole battery of more or less esoteric interpretation was erected to account for this symbolism. A sample of this esotericism, derived from a Sibylline prophecy, is set out in the notes on Augustine's acrostical treatment of the fish...” (911:28-9) Christians have been badly misinformed that the fish symbol represents Christ and His followers because they are “fishers of men.” This pagan emblem, which derives from the pagan zodiac, found its way into the Catholic Church via St. Augustine, a Neo-Platonist. Augustine attempted to justify the adoption of elements of pagan worship in the Church's syncretism, thereby Christianizing pagan practices, emblems and even pagan deities. Augustine wrote concerning the fish: “If you combine the initial letters of the five Greek words, which are Iesous Chreistos Theou Uios Soter, Jesus Christ the Son of God the Saviour, they make the word ichthus, meaning fish, and the mystic meaning of this noun is Christ, because He had power to exist alive, that is, without sin, in the bottomless pit of our mortal life, as in the depths of the sea.” In The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop stated that Jesus Christ “began to be popularly called ICHTHYS (or ICHTHUS), that is 'the Fish', manifestly to identify Him with Dagon...[and] that Icthus, or the Fish, was one of the names of Bacchus.” Dagon was the Philistine Fish-deity and Bacchus was the Greek name for Tammuz, the Babylonian Sun-god. Making an artistic representation of the fish for religious reasons is forbidden in the Book of Deuteronomy. “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.” (Deut. 4:15-19)...." www.watch.pair.com/pisces.html also: THE LOST TRIBE OF DAN: "Fish merovingian" and www.watch.pair.com/dan.html#3c1
Still no admission that you were totally wrong about David Friedrich Strauss? So how many of the people on your list actually did say Jesus did not exist, or even cast his existence into doubt? How many of them had any expertise on the matter? What evidence do you have? If you have no evidence that any experts have agreed with you, what does that mean? Do you really think ad hominem arguments attacking me do anything to prove your case?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
God, you're a cry baby. Whiner. This is why you could never try a case. You're incapable of focusing on the big picture. You get bogged down on some point YOU think matters. There's a reason why you peaked in life 40 years ago. See if you can figure it out.
Excuse me, but I don't understand this 'focusing on the big picture; getting bogged down on some point that he (or anyone really) thinks matters' routine.......it seems like you've been demanding 'proof' or 'evidence' of the existence of Jesus Christ. You went so far as to list a whole bunch of names, it would seem, as representing evidence of some 'brilliant' minds who support your position. And when [edit: correct spelling] You made a statement that Jesus didn't exist and prvoided a list of those whom you consider back your position....and when at least one was found to not be the case, it suddenly is 'some minute or insignificant point' and doesn't matter. That sort of sounds like like 'stay focused on my left hand; no, don't look at the right one==trust me'. Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position? Thanx
I should have pinged you to the previous comment in that I used your name. Sorry.
Still no admission that you were wrong about Strauss. What people on your list said what you claim?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Not only that. That just happens to be the name I checked (and not even because I thought or suspected Paul Revere was wrong in claiming he took his position. I started to question in my mind my previous assertion -- which turned out to be wrong, when I checked -- that Strauss was French. So I checked.) And that name that I happened to check turns out not to belong on Paul Revere's list. For all I know, none of the names on his list take the position Paul Revere claims. Thanks for supporting my position, by the way.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're one to talk. What do you call your posts? Like your complaint about my mentioning my degrees, only to have you long after in the thread start bragging about your courtroom successes. I wonder if they're any more real than your list of scholars.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I caught your earlier comments regarding your thinking of Strauss as a Frenchman, and that you were perhaps a little squeamish over that (not the appropriate term, I'm sure) and went to check it out, and found out that not only was the guy not a Frenchie, he did NOT support PR's apparent assertion. Isn't it odd how sometimes one thing leads to the discovery of another! :) While it may support your position, what actually brought me to this point was that this 'stellar' counsellor has effectively said, 'oh, don't bother looking at the evidence, trust me'. And a lawyer is one of the very last people on earth that I would trust. Anyone that goes to a school to learn how to speak out of both sides of their mouth, as well as take acting, is not exactly someone I would admire. Principles and ethics mean a lot to this 'dumb old broad'. And when I see something like what PR is doing here-- ignoring questions or grabbing some new subject to bring into the mix, the hackles go up. And if it happens on a topic upon which we don't agree--where we would tend to have our BS meter running, how much BS is put out there as 'gospel' on topics where the BS meter is in OFF position.
Whatever, Aristedious. If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't.
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
You have hit the problem on the nose. Most worship the man, not the ideals he espoused. The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.
I thought he didn't exist.
Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
I tell everyone to quit hating each other and they just laugh at me.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
It's code for you'll get your money for Afghani heroin tonight, watch for a blue stationwagon.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
"one hand washes the other". Watch for the Red Stick.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
I don't think Jesus lived as represented. I do believe that the lessons he is said to have taught are good lessons which have been taught by wise men. I don't believe all the hero elements that were commonly ascribed to heroes in ancient times. You know, virgin birth, son of God. Crap like that.
He said; In secret have I said nothing. He also said, If you Love Me,, do My Words, and the Words that I speak are the Words of my Father, and are not mine. (understand, I paraphase; did not look up the specific quotes/verses.) The problem, Dak, if you will simply read this thread, as I assume that you have, then you begin to understand that because so many people accept the errors that have been brought into Christianity, they really have no clue as to what is the Truth. Is it then your contention that it is acceptable to celebrate the birth of Tammuz on Dec. 25th, calling on the son of god to save you? Simply because His (Jesus)telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story? How about birthdays? Is it acceptable to celebrate any birthdays? Given that the celebration of birthdays is the basis of the acceptance of life begins at birth, and thus abortion is OK? Is that acceptable? Again, simply because? The message of Jesus is either correct in all respects, or, it is not. For instance, the cross had been used throughout the ages as a fertility symbol. And, it was brought into Christianity by the Roman church, who also brought in Easter, Xmas and etc. That is the problem we face, finding the Truth.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist. Precisely what you've spent this whole thread denying. You just won't have the decency to admit you lost the argument.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't. But, even though you've lost the argument, you continue to insult me. I guess you won't forgive somebody who points out an error you make, and who beats you in an argument. I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why don't you just kick your dog? You could still get your frustrations out that way, but it wouldn't annoy us like your whiney posts do.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Everything is revealed. Everything.
Interesting how all that 'brilliance' can be tarnished so quickly. More interesting, it seems, is just who did their own tarnishing. I congratulate you on keeping the level of debate/discussion on the high road.
No, retard, I haven't. I've concluded that talking to a sad old fart like you is a waste of time. Don't you have restrooms to troll?
I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
Sounds like somebody needs a nap.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Or a diaper change? Would you believe a bottle of Midol?
I'm surprised that no one has substantiated that Jesus did in fact die on a two- beam cross using the account written in the book of Mathew: And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." (Mathew 27:37 ESV) This reveals that Jesus' sign was placed above his head. If Jesus were crucified on a pole (with hands placed above head) then the sign would have been placed above his "hands" not "head." best wishes, zerocool
good observation. welcome to 4, zerocool.
well done, welcome to 4!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I began this tread to start people thinking and talking. Seems to have worked. I am, frankly, pleased at the very well thought out comments, and not at all suprised at the ignorance displayed as well. Esp. by those who have never read the Bible, but who put forth comments as if they have some knowledge on the subject. There is a very interesting book; Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, by Jason David BeDuhn, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He makes a very important quote in Chapter 10; "... and make sure that the translations come out in accordance with their beliefs." The point about the Bible is that when such things are done, mistranslations, the Bible ceases to confirm itself. I showed this in how a mistranslation in one Bible came about because the beliefs of the translator did not permit him to quote correctly from the original in the Old Testament. Still, someone argued with me, not accepting that a quote is a quote; no changes permitted. But overall, perhaps Critter made the best statement; "Does it matter?" Referring to a post or to a cross having been used. Well, yes, and no. The act occurred. The actual instrument is not an issue. The issue is how so-called Christians permit themselves to be led astray from the real issues. For instance, making an item of worship out of the cross. Please permit me to digress for a moment. I have found a couple of written descriptions of how men were put to death by the Romans. I will just give you a brief report. First off, this was always a sentance of death, and it was a death that was designed to be long and very, very painful; i.e., the men were tortured to death on the post. Unless someone was famous or his crime was well known, there was no parade of the victim supporting the post on the way to the execution. Everything was prepared in advance, with the hole ready for the post and the post laid out beside the hole. Generally, there were four soldiers/jailers, who always had very firm control of the victim. When they arrived at the post, one of the s/j kicked the victims feet out from under him and he was slammed down onto the post by the two s/j who had his arms, driving all of the air out of his lungs and making him helpless for a short period of time. The kicker used the nails and the maul, with two of the s/j strecthing out his legs, and one holding his arms crossed over the post above his head. Generally, within just a few seconds of arriving at the post, the nails would have been driven through his wrists, and this pain would further disable the victim, making it easier to continue with the feet. The legs were stretched out and the feet pulled flat against the pole, and the nails were driven trough the arch of the foot. Ready to ahng the victim.... except.... Sometimes the court which condemned the victim would issue a death sentance with mercy; i.e., so the victim would die faster. When this happened, the maul was used to smash one leg (the shin bone; you want to think about what that would feel like) and one arm. The final death on the tourture post was by asphyxiation; when the full weight of the body hangs only by the arms, this constricts the chest and slowly slowly slowly the victim dies from a lack of oxygen. When the victim can no longer, despite the great pain caused by the movement, pull himself up by his arms, or push himself up from his legs to take a breath, asphyxiation occurs. Smashing one leg and one arm generally meant that the victim died in a day or so rather than lastin for two or three days. By now, the post is ready to be dropped into the hole. The accounts that I have read make the point that by the time the post was upright, blood was generally freely flowing from the mouths of the victims, who generally bit through their tongues during the process. Victims were even known to have bit the ends of their tongues off. Also, unless the sentancing court said differently, the bodies were left to rot on the post. No burial. As related in this thread, there were a couple of other systems used, always efficient methods of putting people to death. Included in this were the H, which was two posts on which a cross bar, with the victim nailed to that cross bar, was placed. The problem with such systems is that victim died much faster because they could not use their legs for support for breathing. The Romans were into efficiency and slow deaths. Overall, the point that I was heading for was a question; I have never understood how so-called Christians could make an item of worship out of something such as an instument of torture & death; esp. when that object of worship, the cross, is promoted by the same churches that promote easter and Xmas. And please, do not tell me about how the cross is only a symbol; I have watched people pray to crosses all of my life, and I find it... well, lacking in taste for a better way to put it. The object of this discussion, and those to follow, is to begin to learn how all of us have been seriously misled about what is true in history. And, about how we have been mislead to the enrichment of the so-called churches. And, does someone find that this last comment is also off-base?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Ping!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
...apparently, in this book, one is (to) turn within and seek the 'divine counselor' for insight, and leave it at that. Exactly.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
No, but just because the Bible says Jesus was tied to a cross or hung from a tree or nailed to a post doesn't mean he was.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
And please, do not tell me about how the cross is only a symbol; I have watched people pray to crosses all of my life, and I find it... well, lacking in taste for a better way to put it. My "2¢" on the matter: Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Christian churches (or certainly all modern mainstream ones) definitely are "patterned" off of the Roman Catholic "model". Thus, perhaps we should look at what we're REALLY dealing with here. By and large, Christians DON'T follow even the 10 Commandments - in particular the 2nd. Christiandom has as the 9th Commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"; and, as the 10th "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" - AND (as mentioned) has the 2nd "bumped" off altogether. SO, in light of this, just the ACT of MAKING those crosses that adorn very nearly EVERY "Christian" home (right along with those statues of the Messiah and all the others too) in itself is a violation of the 2nd Commandment - let alone WORSHIP of such!!! It appears to me rather amazing that Christians come up with all sorts of things to "defend" their various positions on something like whether there was a crossbar on the Messiah's "instrument of death", and all the while completely IGNORE the MUCH bigger issue at hand in the first place! For those that KNOW me, they KNOW I am a believer in the Messiah; BUT I refuse to be called a Christian. I do NOT want to be "clumped" into that "category", and for several reasons; but, first and foremost, because by and large Christians simply do NOT follow Scripture. They follow "feed good" ideas. America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy, had Catholic stamped on my dog tags and married in the Catholic Church. In those days I didn't even think much about what scripture said, nor was it ever taught to me by the Catholic Church. Oh sure, we had a verse or two each Sunday, and then a sermon based on the verse, but the teaching/instruction never elevated from the milk level to the meat level. At my Church we had a huge cross with Jesus hanging, bleeding behind the altar. It wasn't until much later in life that I asked, "why, if Jesus lives, and "He has risen", do the churches continue to portray Him as hanging dead on a cross in front of all the little kids that they make go to church ? As was mentioned by innieway above, most Christians are simply following in the footsteps of their parents or following some feel good preachers advice rather than search the scriptures themselves.
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
Me too. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I hesitate to answer yes or no, because I don't agree with alot of 'Christians'. I do agree with most everything Jesus supposedly said especially the Lord's Prayer. The Bible has an immeasurable wealth of wisdom in it. I'm much more likely to accept an invitation to Church if there's food to be eaten afterward. Mmmmm... food.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
That's a warning; "Fuck with us and you'll end up like this guy."
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
It gets even worse than that. Of all the 6000+ manuscripts that are extant, no two of them are in 100% agreement. This leads the translators to have to make educated guesses as to which accounts are "correct" and which are "incorrect" and leads to different things in different editions. Suggested reading: Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus Ehrman is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I edited my post to reflect what you point out here AFTER you had made this reply. But, this reply DOES point out something very important, IMHO - that the very term Christian invokes an "image" in everyone's mind, and by accepting that "title" there is a preconceived notion of your beliefs. I don't hesitate. I let it be known straight up I'm NOT a Christian. I don't care to even walk in the doors (and just don't do it) of a "den of lies" or "place of pagan practices" - food or not... BTW, I wasn't "born and raised" this way - quite the contrary. Perhaps if more people would take a stance of "everything I've ever learned might be based upon lies" and take an honest look at things for themselves with an open mind (and perhaps listen to what some "kooks" say and weigh the evidence), they may find that INDEED everything they HAD been taught WAS a pack of lies...
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Me too. I USED to have the crosses, rosaries, Mary and Jesus statues, etc as a part of my "home decor". And along the line of those things being a violation of the Second Commandment, just what are the works of Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel and elsewhere - no matter what an "amazing human accomplishment" they may be? It strikes me as one thing when someone is doing something who just honestly doesn't know better, and quite another when they've been exposed to something (like someone telling them something which they don't have good rebuttal for) which SHOULD give them reason to dig for answers but then DON'T. Failure to take action because it may put you outside your "comfort zone" is NO excuse.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Excellent essay, innieway; thank you. Better than I could have written, although it was next to be tried!!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
All of those icons and assorted other bullshit only serve to reduce the unmeasurable power of the Creator of the universe. It ALL belongs to the Creator and we have been appointed TRUSTEES with a fiduciary responsibility to improve it, without ANY personal ownership. Materialism serves to reduce us to a sub-human level of self gratification that prevents us from better serving as trustees, actually causes us to violate our duties in pursuit of material "stuff" ... we lose our moral compass, become more akin to base animals ... like the old broads spoken of in another thread that went to Africa to get laid as if they were dogs. The scriptures point out that mankind's heart will wax cold in the latter times. This is happening, people are losing their respect for things once considered sacred, like their love for their fellow man.
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
Agreed. As are other signs of "the end times". This begs the question "How do we approach these times?" With anxiety? Fear? Certainly preparation would be wise...
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. 
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#2. To: richard9151 (#0)
#3. To: PnbC (#1)
rather than palms
#4. To: richard9151 (#0)
Galatians 3:13; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED is EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE.
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
version of the event
#6. To: aristeides (#4)
But I would be very surprised if it couldn't also be used to refer to a (wooden) cross.
#7. To: richard9151 (#5)
#8. To: richard9151 (#0)
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
#9. To: richard9151 (#0)
#10. To: Alan Chapman (#9)
(Edited)
This is why Christians believe that when they die they will go to "heaven" with God's sun.
#11. To: Alan Chapman (#9)
Jesus is a fictional character like Hercules and the Bible is nothing but a collection of sun-worship allegories and folklore.
Steven Wright
#12. To: gengis gandhi (#8)
idolatry of a book....a map is not the place, a book is not god.
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
This is why Christians believe that when they die they will go to "heaven"
The bad ones will be tossed into a lake of fire, where rather than die quickly, they'll roast alive for eternity. Quackery.
Steven Wright
#14. To: innieway (#11)
#15. To: innieway (#11)
#16. To: Alan Chapman (#9)
Christianity has its roots in the worship of the heavens.
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
The bad ones will be tossed into a lake of fire, where rather than die quickly, they'll roast alive for eternity.
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
Why is the Gibson vehicle any less valid than the recount in any of the myriad of B-books ?
#19. To: innieway (#13)
#20. To: Alan Chapman (#14)
I'd just assume debate the historical verisimilitude of Lord of the Rings.
Steven Wright
#21. To: richard9151 (#18)
When Gibson's work is around for a couple of thousand years, then, just maybe, it will have some vailidity.
#22. To: christine (#15)
have you seen Zeitgeist Part 1?
Steven Wright
#23. To: richard9151 (#16)
#24. To: Alan Chapman (#23)
The idea of ascending to "Heaven" is a ubiquitous notion in ancient religions predating Christianity by thousands of years. The pyramids in Egypt were built to facilitate the ascension of pharaohs into "Heaven" to join Horus, who was the son of Amen-Ra. The way to the Father was through the Son.
#25. To: innieway (#20)
#26. To: gengis gandhi (#8)
idolatry of a book....a map is not the place, a book is not god
#27. To: richard9151 (#17)
where do you find this in the Bible? Please, I would like to know, cause I must have missed it.
#28. To: richard9151 (#0)
#29. To: all (#0)
#30. To: richard9151 (#17)
http://www.biblicaltheology.org/lof.pdf
#31. To: Alan Chapman (#9)
Jesus is a fictional character like Hercules and the Bible is nothing but a collection of sun-worship allegories and folklore.
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
That applies only to the good ones. The bad ones will be tossed into a lake of fire, where rather than die quickly, they'll roast alive for eternity. Quackery.
#33. To: innieway (#11)
Can you offer any evidence of these allegations? If not, then they are merely opinions.
#34. To: Alan Chapman (#14)
I'd just assume debate the historical verisimilitude of Lord of the Rings.
#35. To: Paul Revere (#33)
#36. To: Alan Chapman (#23)
I get my information from reading. Where do you get yours from, the Bible?
#37. To: Alan Chapman (#23)
The idea of ascending to "Heaven" is a ubiquitous notion in ancient religions predating Christianity by thousands of years. The pyramids in Egypt were built to facilitate the ascension of pharaohs into "Heaven" to join Horus, who was the son of Amen-Ra. The way to the Father was through the Son.
#38. To: aristeides (#35)
(Edited)
I think the evidence that someone named Jesus existed is pretty good.
#39. To: Paul Revere (#38)
#40. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#26)
I agree with you. Biblical literalists are the ultimate idolaters: Bibliolaters. They worship the literal text rather than following the spiritual meaning and teachings. It's not surprising that many Fundies also tend to be Zionists, which is basically idolatry of a piece of land.
#41. To: aristeides (#39)
(Edited)
#42. To: Paul Revere (#41)
I'm familiar with the documents of the time, too, and that's why I know they do not mention Jesus, except for one very dubious reference made at least 30 years after he is alleged to have died.
#43. To: Paul Revere (#34)
#44. To: aristeides (#42)
My first three degrees are in Classics (Greek and Latin). I studied a lot of ancient (mostly non-Christian) literature and history.
#45. To: aristeides (#42)
There are a couple of papyrus fragments of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that seem to antedate the First Jewish Rebellion and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
#46. To: Alan Chapman (#43)
Jedi census phenomenon
#47. To: richard9151 (#0)
#48. To: richard9151 (#36)
#49. To: Alan Chapman (#48)
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
I'm especially happy about that lake of fire thing. I was told by a poster never to be mentioned by me that I might be doomed to spend a least a short shift there. I haven't had a decent night's sleep since.
#51. To: Paul Revere (#45)
#52. To: SmokinOPs (#44)
Then I'm sure you are familiar with this guy:
#53. To: Dakmar (#47)
(Edited)
Not trying to be facetious, but the words "crucifix" and "crucify" are formed from the root cruc, meaning a cross. (In automotive lingo, a chassis that has an X-shaped support is termed "cruciform".) Had they just nailed Jesus to a post, I think they would have used a different word.
#54. To: Paul Revere (#33)
We worship knowledge, information, and logic. It's a FACT that you cannot prove there is a God or that Jesus ever lived.
1) Blindly and ignorantly go along with what the religious leaders say like the good little lemmings they are OR:
2) Take the viewpoint you have adopted (which, given the tenacity and ignorance of the first group, it is easier to understand WHY you have that viewpoint)
Steven Wright
#55. To: aristeides (#51)
(Edited)
That is the conventional dating of the gospels, which was developed before these papyrus fragments turned up.
#56. To: Alan Chapman (#25)
Does it remind you of anyone?
#57. To: innieway (#54)
#58. To: Hayek Fan (#56)
It reminds me of the average American sucking off the teat of government.
#59. To: richard9151 (#0)
#60. To: Alan Chapman (#48)
You asked me where the Bible says that Christians are going to Heaven. I showed you. What difference does it make what context it's in?
Christians believe in Heaven and that they're going there. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe that. Either they read it somewhere or somebody told them. In either case, they blindly believed it.
Steven Wright
#61. To: Paul Revere (#58)
In other words, all the people who use the government's tax exemption to propagate their religious nonsense, or who have faith based programs partially funded by government.
#62. To: Hayek Fan (#61)
#63. To: Hayek Fan (#59)
#64. To: Paul Revere (#63)
(Edited)
God is closer to them than to anyone in the universe, because those 107 people that live in Budafuck, USA and go to the All Gospel Bible Church are hooked into God.
#65. To: Paul Revere (#62)
Show me a government program to help someone, and I'll show you a place where scoundrels are sucking the marrow out of the bones of those same people to be helped. It's a boondoggle.
#66. To: Hayek Fan (#64)
#67. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
#68. To: Paul Revere (#66)
Jesus wants to burn you for eternity because HE LOVES YOU.
#69. To: Paul Revere (#57)
Steven Wright
#70. To: innieway (#54)
I accept that challenge, and will put together a post in the near future on the subject.
#71. To: Paul Revere (#58)
It reminds me of the average American sucking off the teat of government.
Steven Wright
#72. To: Paul Revere (#62)
Show me a government program to help someone, and I'll show you a place where scoundrels are sucking the marrow out of the bones of those same people to be helped. It's a boondoggle.
Steven Wright
#73. To: innieway (#69)
BTW, how do you KNOW what "I believe the Bible is"? I think that first and foremost it is a law book, and that the worst thing that ever happened to it was that "religions" got their hands on it -
#74. To: randge (#73)
Holy books never function well as the law books of a society.
Steven Wright
#75. To: innieway (#74)
#76. To: innieway (#60)
#77. To: innieway (#74)
That may well be, but if that's the case it's because those "holy books" are not authentic as to being inspired by The Creator.
#78. To: innieway (#69)
the worst thing that ever happened to law was that "lawyers" got their hands on it.
#79. To: innieway (#71)
As well as those enrolled in the Social Security ponzy scheme; the various licensing schemes; the Federal Reserve, banking, stock market and related schemes, and the various "welfare" schemes.
#80. To: innieway (#60)
#81. To: Alan Chapman (#80)
#82. To: rowdee (#81)
#83. To: Alan Chapman (#80)
#84. To: Alan Chapman (#82)
#85. To: Paul Revere (#78)
That will be four hundred dollars, please.
Steven Wright
#86. To: innieway (#85)
#87. To: Paul Revere (#79)
And now they won't disclose the money supply, because they KNOW it is off the chart.
Steven Wright
#88. To: innieway (#87)
(Edited)
#89. To: Paul Revere (#86)
I can't believe the Loonie is worth more than the dollar. Way to go, federal money managers!
Steven Wright
#90. To: Paul Revere (#55)
#91. To: aristeides (#90)
And you think all these stories about the life of a mythical person who never existed were put into circulation at a time when plenty of people were still around who remembered what was going on in Jerusalem, Judaea, and Galilee at the time the mythical person supposedly lived?
#92. To: Paul Revere (#91)
#93. To: aristeides (#92)
#94. To: Alan Chapman (#25)
Here's a statue of Isis (the virgin) holding Horus, the son of God. Does it remind you of anyone?
#95. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#96. To: Paul Revere, SmokinOPs (#44)
…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[73] - Michael Grant
#97. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#98. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#99. To: aristeides (#96)
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
#100. To: rowdee (#99)
#101. To: aristeides (#95)
(1.) Whereas you keep saying that, if the existence of Jesus can't be proved beyond a doubt, people should act as if he never existed.
#102. To: aristeides (#96)
That's the quote from Michael Grant
#103. To: aristeides (#98)
#104. To: Paul Revere, aristeides (#103)
#105. To: Paul Revere (#103)
#106. To: randge (#104)
#107. To: randge (#104)
#108. To: randge (#104)
(Edited)
#109. To: Paul Revere (#101)
Unlike you, I don't try to prove something that is factual by giving the opinion someone has given which happens to agree with mine. Try logic and facts. They work a lot better than quoting someone whose opinion you think matters.
#110. To: Paul Revere (#91)
Apparently you've never heard of the Mormon religion or Scientology.
#111. To: the thread (#110)
#112. To: lodwick (#111)
#113. To: Critter (#112)
Does it really matter?
#114. To: aristeides (#109)
(Edited)
You claim to be a lawyer, do you not? I think that means being able to judge evidence.
#115. To: aristeides (#110)
(Edited)
Are you claiming Joseph Smith did not exist?
#116. To: aristeides (#108)
Plato seems to have written a generation or more after the death of Socrates.
#117. To: all (#110)
(Edited)
#118. To: richard9151 (#0)
(Edited)
#119. To: All (#117)
#120. To: richard9151 (#0)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: FormerLurker (#120)
(Edited)
the Essenes
#122. To: Paul Revere, aristeides (#101)
You're trying to bogart your way past the fact that you have no proof Jesus was ever born, so you believe what you want to believe. And contrary to your statement, you're more than a little bit religious. Just admit that you think of yourself as a Christian, and you believe the story of Jesus because you have faith, not proof.
#123. To: Paul Revere (#114)
I have judged your evidence. You're a typical Bible thumper. I make you for a retired government employee. Post Office? Social Security? HUD?
#124. To: tom007 (#123)
(Edited)
#125. To: Paul Revere (#124)
Why do you have this unctuous need to smooth discussions, and why do you think I care? If you don't like the way I opine, too bad. I'm not here to satisfy your need for friendly discussions. I'm having a discussion with Ari, your buddy, because he thinks he's an authority on whether Jesus existed. Hold his balls if you must, but don't bother me
#126. To: All (#124)
#127. To: Minerva (#125)
Yes, being an asshole
#128. To: Paul Revere (#117)
(Edited)
Prof. Arthur Drews of Karlsruhe, Charles F. Dupuis, Robert Taylor, David F. Strauss, Kersey Graves, John M. Robertson, Thomas Whittaker, Robert Arthur Drews, Peter C. A. Jensen, William B. Smith, L. Gordon Rylands, P. L. Couchoud, and John E. Remsburg.
#129. To: Paul Revere (#115)
I'm claiming the angel Moroni never existed. I'm claiming the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, like much of your Bible.
#130. To: aristeides (#128)
#131. To: randge (#116)
provide a link.
#132. To: Zipporah (#130)
#133. To: aristeides (#132)
#134. To: Paul Revere (#119)
It is not important whether he lived or not. It is the bundle of decent principles he is quoted as addressing that make him important, not the ridiculous religion people like the Apostle Paul and an army of Catholic Bishops created, or the beast that exists today as modern Christendom.
#135. To: randge (#116)
Plato seems to have written a generation or more after the death of Socrates.
#136. To: Paul Revere (#114)
I have judged your evidence. You're a typical Bible thumper. I make you for a retired government employee. Post Office? Social Security? HUD?
#137. To: aristeides (#131)
#138. To: Paul Revere (#119)
#139. To: aristeides (#129)
(Edited)
But what you're denying is just just the truth of the Bible, but the very existence of the founder of Christianity.
#140. To: aristeides (#132)
There's controversy about the authenticity of the passage or passages in Josephus (I don't even know enough about the matter to know whether or not there is more than one of them.) A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.
#141. To: aristeides (#134)
(Edited)
Ever stop to consider that there might be some connection between your rejection of religion and the sort of character you exhibit in your postings?
#142. To: Paul Revere (#140)
A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.
#143. To: aristeides (#142)
If Josephus mentioned Jesus, doesn't that imply Jesus existed?
#144. To: Paul Revere (#139)
But what you're denying is just just the truth of the Bible, but the very existence of the founder of Christianity.
#145. To: Paul Revere (#141)
(Edited)
Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
#146. To: aristeides (#144)
(Edited)
#147. To: aristeides (#145)
(Edited)
#148. To: aristeides (#136)
(Edited)
My, what tact you exhibit! Do you think that sort of language will persuade anybody?
#149. To: Paul Revere (#117)
#150. To: aristeides (#142)
(Edited)
A lot of scholars think Josephus mentioned Jesus, but the passage or passages was/were later altered to make them more acceptable to later Christians.
#151. To: Alan Chapman (#80)
#152. To: Paul Revere (#147)
#153. To: aristeides (#152)
(Edited)
#154. To: Paul Revere (#153)
(Edited)
You're incapable of focusing on the big picture. You get bogged down on some point YOU think matters.
aristides aristeides found one that differed with you and what you were saying/supporting and pointed it out to you, you're calling it whining and bogged down???
#155. To: aristeides (#154)
#156. To: Paul Revere (#153)
#157. To: rowdee, Paul Revere (#154)
Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position?
#158. To: Paul Revere (#153)
Whiner.
#159. To: aristeides (#157)
#160. To: aristeides (#158)
#161. To: richard9151 (#0)
Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
#162. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#163. To: Paul Revere (#162)
The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.
#164. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#165. To: Fred Mertz (#163)
#166. To: tom007 (#164)
Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?
#167. To: Dakmar (#166)
#168. To: Fred Mertz (#163)
I thought he didn't exist.
#169. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#170. To: Paul Revere (#168)
#171. To: Paul Revere (#160)
(Edited)
Whatever, Aristedious.
#172. To: Paul Revere (#148)
Now how many jury trials have you won, professor NOBODY?
#173. To: aristeides (#171)
I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
#174. To: aristeides (#171)
#175. To: aristeides (#170)
So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist.
#176. To: aristeides (#171)
wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
#177. To: Paul Revere (#176)
I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
#178. To: Minerva (#177)
#179. To: richard9151 (#3)
#180. To: zerocool (#179)
This reveals that Jesus' sign was placed above his head.
#181. To: zerocool (#179)
#182. To: PnbC, Jethro Tull, robin, Christine, aristeides, gengis gandhi, Alan Chapman, innieway, lodwick, Rupert_Pupkin, mirage, rowdee, Paul Revere, SmokinOPs, Dakmar, tom007, randge, Hayek Fan, Minerva, Critter, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, FormerLurker (#0)
And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches.
#183. To: noone222, Fred Mertz, Cynicom, zerocool, , *Bible facts*, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
#184. To: gengis gandhi (#8)
...a book is not god...
#185. To: richard9151, gengis ghandi (#12)
...the Bible is not and does not pretend to be a so-called god.
#186. To: richard9151 (#182)
(Edited)
Overall, the point that I was heading for was a question; I have never understood how so-called Christians could make an item of worship out of something such as an instument of torture & death; esp. when that object of worship, the cross, is promoted by the same churches that promote easter and Xmas.
The Roman Catholic "model" very effectively CHANGED the 10 Commandments, resulting in nearly ALL of "Christiandom" being led astray. The 2nd Commandment which forbids the making of, and bowing down to images, was completely OMITTED; while the 10th (which forbid coveting) was split in two - thus giving the false appearance of still having "10 Commandments". The 2nd Commandment ACTUALLY says:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The 10th Commandment ACTUALLY says:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Secondly (which may be an off-spin of the first and is at least related), I'm not at all "keen" on the idea of allowing myself to be judged by perceptions associated with a "title" - at least not a common one. While it may be possible to defend my religious beliefs prohibiting me from vaccinations and licenses AND be termed "Christian" at the same time; it is considerably more difficult, as everyone KNOWS that these things are not something which violate the Christian mantra. Christian isn't a title which the Apostles used in describing themselves, why should I? The words Jesus Christ are used as a TITLE for the Messiah, it was not His name. I firmly believe that Christiandom is a tool which has been used as part of the means by which the whole world has been deceived.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#187. To: innieway (#186)
#188. To: innieway (#186)
For those that KNOW me, they KNOW I am a believer in the Messiah; BUT I refuse to be called a Christian. I do NOT want to be "clumped" into that "category", and for several reasons; but, first and foremost, because by and large Christians simply do NOT follow Scripture. They follow "feed good" ideas.
#189. To: noone222 (#187)
"why, if Jesus lives, and "He has risen", do the churches continue to portray Him as hanging dead on a cross in front of all the little kids that they make go to church ?
#190. To: richard9151 (#182)
The point about the Bible is that when such things are done, mistranslations, the Bible ceases to confirm itself.
#191. To: wudidiz (#188)
Me too. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I hesitate to answer yes or no, because I don't agree with alot of 'Christians'.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#192. To: noone222 (#187)
I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy...
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#193. To: innieway (#186)
My "2¢" on the matter:
#194. To: innieway (#192)
I USED to have the crosses, rosaries, Mary and Jesus statues, etc as a part of my "home decor".
#195. To: noone222 (#194)
The scriptures point out that mankind's heart will wax cold in the latter times. This is happening, people are losing their respect for things once considered sacred, like their love for their fellow man.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest