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: 2938
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
Comments (1-98) not displayed.
.
.
.
#99. To: aristeides (#96)
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'?
Comments (139 - 195) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
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)
.
.
.