Catholic Church get's sued over existence of Christ

[Byzantine Prince]

In Italy they can sue the church for their millenia old con over people. That is the coolest thing I've seen in a while.
This is awesome!

link CNN - link (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/index.html)

I wonder if I get any reparations for being deceaved when I was small. :idea2:

[Watchman]

Heh, that's kinda funny. There's a sort of surreal Monty Python feel to it. Although I can understand why that old priest might be a little frustrated...

Gotta hand it to that Gascioli fellow, though - I'm pretty sure most people of that age don't go and do something as radical. Heck, most of the people half my age don't, despite all the talk.

'obscurantism'. gotta remember that one.

[Strike For The South]

I never thought it was a question of whether he existed or not. Isnt he in Roman redords as being crucified?

[Xiahou]

Here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html) is a case for the defense. :book:

Honestly, this lawsuit is utterly ridiculous. There is no way that the prosecution will be able to establish the non-existence of Jesus. It makes me wonder why the judge hasn't dismissed this nonsense already. :confused:

[Watchman]

He probably needs to go through a fair few formalities first, especially as the old codger pulls appeals. Heck, the old bugger himself thinks his odds to win are about zilch.

I did say it was surreal, didn't I ? :dizzy2:

On the other hand, assuming that Gascioli character isn't a real loon, hasn't gone senile or just decided to have a bit of a laugh at his countrymens' expense (everyone needs a hobby...) odds are he's really just making a polemical statement in the guise of a court case.

I can see why the whole thing would bug the living daylights out of the poor judge too, though.

[Byzantine Prince]

Regardless of what the outcome is he can be like the Rosa Parks for us atheists. By attacking the Catholic church so openly he has opened a pandora's box that will only escalate as later generations become increasingly aware of the truth.

[Watchman]

:book:
:book:
:book:
:inquisitive:
...no, I still can't tell if that statement was serious or not.

[Xiahou]

Regardless of what the outcome is he can be like the Rosa Parks for us atheists. By attacking the Catholic church so openly he has opened a pandora's box that will only escalate as later generations become increasingly aware of the truth.
Rosa Parks for atheists? What are you smoking? :dizzy2:

[Papewaio]

A Rosa Park for atheists would be someone who helps atheists become Cardinals...

[Watchman]

Rosa Who, anyway ?

[AntiochusIII]

Rosa Who, anyway ?A "civil right activist" whose one simple action of defying the segregation provoked the whole Civil Rights movement. (She actually confessed she was tired rather than spirited when that momentous event happened, and that's why she didn't move from the white section of a public bus when the police demanded that she move.)

A Rosa Park for atheists would be someone who helps atheists become Cardinals...That happens everyday in MTW. ~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html) is a case for the defense. :book:

Honestly, this lawsuit is utterly ridiculous. There is no way that the prosecution will be able to establish the non-existence of Jesus. It makes me wonder why the judge hasn't dismissed this nonsense already. :confused:

He has tried, apparently;

The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

Crazed Rabbit

[GoreBag]

Awesome. That's the silliest thing I've heard all day.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is this where I'm supposed to flame BP for attacking christianity?

Just want to make sure I get though the hoop like a good doggie.

[Strike For The South]

Regardless of what the outcome is he can be like the Rosa Parks for us atheists. By attacking the Catholic church so openly he has opened a pandora's box that will only escalate as later generations become increasingly aware of the truth.

I see......:juggle2:

[Lemur]

There is some independent evidence that Joshua (whom we refer to by the Greek "Jesus", for reasons I don't really understand) was a real, historical figure. I don't think they can go proving he didn't exist. Impossible to prove a negative and all of that.

Otherwise, I think this is very funny. Like Watchman said, it sounds like something straight out of Monty Python. If they want to tie up their courts with ridiculous lawsuits, well, who are we to judge? We gave the world the McDonald's coffee spilling lawsuit, the finger in the chili lawsuit, the ... oh, there are too many to mention by name.

[Samurai Waki]

haven't you people ever seen the Jesus scene off of Family Guy: Stewie: The Untold Story? funny stuff.

[InsaneApache]

I never thought it was a question of whether he existed or not. Isnt he in Roman redords as being crucified?

IIRC No. No record that Pontius Pilate existed. No record of a census. How peculiar. :inquisitive:

[Scurvy]

I always thought it was pretty certain that Jesus did exist as a religous leader of the christian faith, however the miracles/actions he performed were questionable, not his existance itself?

extremely funny though,

[Xiahou]

IIRC No. No record that Pontius Pilate existed. No record of a census. How peculiar. :inquisitive:Read my link, it would contradict that statement. Also, for further reading, you can refer to the citations list at the bottom of the article. :wink:

[Geoffrey S]

Can any form of law or jurisdiction in Italy be taken seriously?

I always thought it was pretty certain that Jesus did exist as a religous leader of the christian faith, however the miracles/actions he performed were questionable, not his existance itself?
Reminds me to read Behold The Man by Michael Moorcock again. Classic.

[Ser Clegane]

"In my book, 'The Fable of Christ,' I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

So now the time of courts is wasted for this kind of discussions?

I guess Italian taxpayers are really glad that they have to pay to promote Cascioli's book...

[Red Peasant]

I never thought it was a question of whether he existed or not. Isnt he in Roman redords as being crucified?

There is no reliable, independent evidence for JC's existence, certainly no official Roman records.
Pontius Pilate did exist, and he is a ruthless and rapacious procurator of Judaea in Josephus, not the kindly person of the NT. If the execution of a JC did happen, then crucifixion was the Roman punishment for JC's crimes (for insurrection - claiming he was the annointed one i.e. Christ/Messiah, the king of the Jews), and Pilate would certainly have punished him like this with no hesitation. The Jewish punishment was stoning for such blasephemy, yet they were blamed.
There was no census as stated in the New Testament.
The 'gospels' were anonymous documents written long after JC supposedly died. The names were added much later.
The earliest records accepted by scholars are the first few letters of Paul which make no mention of a living JC, the 'Christ' being treated symbolically. Most of his later letters are forgeries, probably of C2 AD to combat heresy and gnostic ideas. This makes them internally contradictory as a body of evidence because the earlier letters are clearly influenced by gnosticism.

You really need faith to be a Christian, so the core moral message of the NT (whatever that is, as it can be contradictory) should be a Christian's guide, not the unreliable fairy tales it contains.

[R'as al Ghul]

Hilarious!
Two questions:
1. Is the Vatican, as an autonomous state, subject to Italian Law?
2. Do you think after the judge's ruling the case will be settled once and for all?

~:cheers:

[Ser Clegane]

2. Do you think after the judge's ruling the case will be settled once and for all?

If he decides in favour of Cascioli, somebody will probably drop by to officially confiscate our Bible... but perhaps we can keep it if we blacken all references to "Jesus" :inquisitive:

[SwordsMaster]

I thought that was really funny. Whatever the judge decides it is going to be funny just reading the case.

[R'as al Ghul]

If he decides in favour of Cascioli, somebody will probably drop by to officially confiscate our Bible... but perhaps we can keep it if we blacken all references to "Jesus" :inquisitive:
With all that black the New Testament would look like a CIA document. ~;)
But seriously, what's the Vatican's position on this?
A civil judge judging a transcendental matter? This is absurd.
Who gives him authority to judge about this dispute?
:dizzy2:

[Zalmoxis]

It makes you wonder, what happened to the romans that made them stupid.

[Watchman]

Some scholars claim leab plumbing. 'Course, about the only thing the ancient Latins and modern Italians have in common is the address anyway. Different peoples, same geography.

AFAIK Vatican is a fully sovereign independent nation quite separate from the state of Italy, so obviously it is unlikely to be directly involved in a purely Italian legal case. Most nation-states are going to get very irritated if a foreign sovereign power tries to meddle in their internal legislations anyway.

[Ja'chyra]

With all that black the New Testament would look like a CIA document. ~;)
But seriously, what's the Vatican's position on this?
A civil judge judging a transcendental matter? This is absurd.
Who gives him authority to judge about this dispute?
:dizzy2:

Why is it absurd? are you saying that if I say there is no God and the Bible is wrong that it should be judged by a member of the Church?

Courts are a place for evidence, not faith.

[R'as al Ghul]

Why is it absurd? are you saying that if I say there is no God and the Bible is wrong that it should be judged by a member of the Church?

Courts are a place for evidence, not faith.
No, I'm not saying that. You're entitled to your own opinion and have a right to free speech.
So you shouldn't be judged by anybody. Neither am I a supporter of the catholic church.
That being sad, I find it absurd because the judge is a civil person who is to decide over
a more or less philosophical and century old dispute.
Whatever the outcome may be, the Catholic Church will never acknowledge him as an authority.
If he rules that Jesus did exist, The Vatikan will say: "See, we said it all the time."
If he rules that Jesus didn't exist, The Vatikan will say "Who is this judge guy anyway?"
Therefore the plaintiff has nothing to win.

[Ja'chyra]

No, I'm not saying that. You're entitled to your own opinion and have a right to free speech.
So you shouldn't be judged by anybody. Neither am I a supporter of the catholic church.
That being sad, I find it absurd because the judge is a civil person who is to decide over
a more or less philosophical and century old dispute.
Whatever the outcome may be, the Catholic Church will never acknowledge him as an authority.
If he rules that Jesus did exist, The Vatikan will say: "See, we said it all the time."
If he rules that Jesus didn't exist, The Vatikan will say "Who is this judge guy anyway?"
Therefore the plaintiff has nothing to win.

I'd imagine the plaintiff cares little about what the Vatican might say as he has raised a legal action to stop them from deceiving people, not a theological argument to say that religon in wrong.

[Red Peasant]

I do not know how the legal adversarial system works in Italian courts, but I guess it would be great fun for the observer. I attended many lectures at the British School at Rome during my stay there and the ones presented by the Italians were the best as they got so worked up that you thought they would come to blows. Very often their stances were dictated by their politics, even in classics and archaeology, and you would get slanging matches between old left and right wing enemies. They were great characters.

[KukriKhan]

The Vatican meets (mostly) the eight criteria for recognition as an independent country.
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

but I'm unclear whether Italian civil courts hold any jurisdiction there.

On the other hand, this case seems to be exercising the limits of anti-con-game laws. Did someone - Enrico Righi - intentionally lie (in this case, about the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth) in order to wrongfully profit from believers? And did he so profit?

My guess: court will rule that definitive proof of the actual existence of most individual humans 2,000 years ago is impossible to establish, to judicial standards. And there is no examinable corpse. Hence the existence or non-existence of Jesus is unproveable. He probably won't even address intent, profit, or harm.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

well, in RE we were taught that there was more evidense for jesus than julieus ceaser. sounds like a publicity stunt to me the main argument is surely not whether jesus existed but his teachings.
How on earth could the disiples have just ''Invented'' Jesus and why did they then die horrendoius deaths still proclaiming not only his existence but also the valitiy of his teachings?

Im amazed that BP considers himself subject to the same sort of discrimination that Rosa Parks faced, ive never heard of Cafes with seperate rooms for atheists! :dizzy2:

[R'as al Ghul]

My guess: court will rule that definitive proof of the actual existence of most individual humans 2,000 years ago is impossible to establish, to judicial standards. And there is no examinable corpse. Hence the existence or non-existence of Jesus is unproveable. He probably won't even address intent, profit, or harm.

I think that's very likely.
Leaves us all back where it started. :laugh4:

[Goofball]

Courts are a place for evidence, not faith.

Which is exactly why this case should not be in the courts at all.

Lord knows (no pun intended) that I'm not the biggest fan of Christianity. But my distaste for it lies mainly in the fact that all too often, Christ's followers spend their time trying to tell me how to live my life. So I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world if I were to try telling Christians that because there was no real proof of Christ's existence or his miracles that they were no longer allowed to believe in him or preach their faith.

Now, if this priest was sneaking into public schools and trying to teach the existence of Christ in history class, that would be another matter altogether. But he's not, so I say let him be.

[Xiahou]

There is no reliable, independent evidence for JC's existence, certainly no official Roman records.
Pontius Pilate did exist, and he is a ruthless and rapacious procurator of Judaea in Josephus, not the kindly person of the NT. If the execution of a JC did happen, then crucifixion was the Roman punishment for JC's crimes (for insurrection - claiming he was the annointed one i.e. Christ/Messiah, the king of the Jews), and Pilate would certainly have punished him like this with no hesitation. The Jewish punishment was stoning for such blasephemy, yet they were blamed.
There was no census as stated in the New Testament.
The 'gospels' were anonymous documents written long after JC supposedly died. The names were added much later.
The earliest records accepted by scholars are the first few letters of Paul which make no mention of a living JC, the 'Christ' being treated symbolically. Most of his later letters are forgeries, probably of C2 AD to combat heresy and gnostic ideas. This makes them internally contradictory as a body of evidence because the earlier letters are clearly influenced by gnosticism.

You really need faith to be a Christian, so the core moral message of the NT (whatever that is, as it can be contradictory) should be a Christian's guide, not the unreliable fairy tales it contains.
The bible was no exception in being largely written several hundred years after the fact- many historical documents that are accepted as fact were written the same way. If you wish to dismiss the NT for the same reason, you're also dismissing much of what's known about ancient historical figures. Further, Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. It's rather hypocritical of some modern "enlightened historians" to try and assert that Jesus didn't exist because of a supposed lack of evidence- this has more to do with the anti-Christian bias that's so fashionable now days rather than intellectual honesty.

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.{2} Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

[BDC]

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

Hehe. Best line I have seen in a news story recently.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

This is a nation that is about 88% Catholic. Take 2 guesses who's going to win, or Forza Italia's out.

[Ronin]

:laugh4: HAHAHAHAHA....great! :2thumbsup:

even just as a gag it´s well worth the effort ...


that reminds me.....


I was baptized against my will.....:help: .....I demand restitution dammit!...can anyone inform me of the current value of a pagan soul?.....those bastards are gonna pay and pay big!!!....*runs to the nearest court house* :idea2:

[DemonArchangel]

Jesus:
Existed? Yes.
Holy? No.

'Nuff said.

[Red Peasant]

The bible was no exception in being largely written several hundred years after the fact- many historical documents that are accepted as fact were written the same way. If you wish to dismiss the NT for the same reason, you're also dismissing much of what's known about ancient historical figures. Further, Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. It's rather hypocritical of some modern "enlightened historians" to try and assert that Jesus didn't exist because of a supposed lack of evidence- this has more to do with the anti-Christian bias that's so fashionable now days rather than intellectual honesty.

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not even a single link or even book title.

Trust some random (though senior patron) person on an internet forum?

:inquisitive:

[Redleg]

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

True or untrue - early Christians were fodder in the Roman Games for the amusement of the Romans.


http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm


http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/xtians.html

[CBR]

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

And Josephus finished Antiquities of the Jews in around 93-94 AD so still not a contemporary source. I think the general view is that the first 3 gospels already had been done by that time and the early christians, which at that time was still more or less a jewish sect, would most likely not have been unknown to Josephus.


CBR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jesus:
Existed? Yes.
Holy? No.

'Nuff said.

My answers differ:

Existed? Wrong Tense.

Holy? Wholly.

'Nuff rejoinder.

[Puzz3D]

Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus.


There is doubt about the authenticity of those references. Here's a paper discussing the references to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html#reference

[Reenk Roink]

:inquisitive:

This probably has to top all frivilous lawsuits. :dizzy2:

I'm scared to see who wins... :shame:

[Soulforged]

This is probably the most futile and ridicolous case I've ever heard in all my life (and I heard of one in wich a bird testified :dizzy2: ). Besides proving negatives being imposible, this is not the way to attack the great monster, the quimera that's this great institution, "La Mafia".

Cascioli has my congratulations for trying something this radical and attack this retrograde institution and spreader of lies, but this is not the way to do it. One because it only concerns atheists. Second because, as said, it cannot be prooved. And finally third, there's better angles to attack this corrupt parasitarial fundation. As done with the "Mafia" the better way should be look into their accountability books and in their bancary accounts, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of things going on.

Besides all that the article is no more than a joke, the outcome is so clear as the final words of Casciolli, they'll lose and the Church will continue to swim in gold as it has done for thousands of years.

EDIT: Spelling

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The Church doesn't "swim in gold." Certainly your local branch doesn't. :book:

[Soulforged]

The Church doesn't "swim in gold." Certainly your local branch doesn't.
Well it surprises me that you actually answered to that irrelevancy in my post. Does it really matter? The Vatican sure swims in Gold and all branches of the Roman Catolic Apostolic Church are part of the Vatican, make your conclussions. Now if you're taking the metaphore for what it's, then think of this, the Church on my community has at least the value to save the "villa" right outside crossing the street. I'll not enter that discussion however, 1 because you don't live here, 2- because it's irrelevant to the notorious corruption of any organized religion, being only a lesser demonstration of a big canvas.

[Roark]

There is no reliable, independent evidence for JC's existence, certainly no official Roman records.
Pontius Pilate did exist, and he is a ruthless and rapacious procurator of Judaea in Josephus, not the kindly person of the NT. If the execution of a JC did happen, then crucifixion was the Roman punishment for JC's crimes (for insurrection - claiming he was the annointed one i.e. Christ/Messiah, the king of the Jews), and Pilate would certainly have punished him like this with no hesitation. The Jewish punishment was stoning for such blasephemy, yet they were blamed.
There was no census as stated in the New Testament.
The 'gospels' were anonymous documents written long after JC supposedly died. The names were added much later.
The earliest records accepted by scholars are the first few letters of Paul which make no mention of a living JC, the 'Christ' being treated symbolically. Most of his later letters are forgeries, probably of C2 AD to combat heresy and gnostic ideas. This makes them internally contradictory as a body of evidence because the earlier letters are clearly influenced by gnosticism.

You really need faith to be a Christian, so the core moral message of the NT (whatever that is, as it can be contradictory) should be a Christian's guide, not the unreliable fairy tales it contains.

The axe-grinding is deafening...

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon


These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time--and on inadequate grounds--by several authors during the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

...and the quest continues. Some people are desperate to discount his historicity, quite often because of personal gripes with the church or the church's dogma.

There is as much manuscript evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar.

[Xiahou]

The axe-grinding is deafening...

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon



...and the quest continues. Some people are desperate to discount his historicity, quite often because of personal gripes with the church or the church's dogma.

There is as much manuscript evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar.
I think I'm going to take it upon myself to prove that Alexander the Great never existed. :laugh4:

[CBR]

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon


AFAIK none of them provides any further info that isnt already told by earlier Christian myths and are all like from 100+ AD. In what way are they evidence of the actual existence of Jesus or the details of his life?


CBR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Cascioli has my congratulations for trying something this radical and attack this retrograde institution and spreader of lies, but this is not the way to do it. One because it only concerns atheists. Second because, as said, it cannot be prooved. And finally third, there's better angles to attack this corrupt parasitarial fundation. As done with the "Mafia" the better way should be look into their accountability books and in their bancary accounts, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of things going on.

Its amusing how all these 'enlightened', 'tolerant' people are really so very intolerant of the Church. They can't stop with just not having anything to do with it, they have to actively attack the greatest force for good in the world.

Not surprising though.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Im sick of this Im more tolerant or Im tougher carp that people sling at eachother. Its two diffrent veiwpoints stop being so self indulgent

[Xiahou]

AFAIK none of them provides any further info that isnt already told by earlier Christian myths and are all like from 100+ AD. In what way are they evidence of the actual existence of Jesus or the details of his life?


CBRFind me a contemporary biography of Alexander. Make sure it's less than 100yrs old, since anything older is apparently suspect. :wink:

Ok, the point I'm trying to hammer home is that almost everything we know about Alexander is from texts that were written hundreds of years after he lived- yet we accept it as fact (and Im not here to sincerely argue it isnt). Yet, we have people insisting that we must totally dimiss more contemporary references to Jesus, including the gospels, because they were written too long after his life. Im not even asking people to wholeheartedly agree with everything in the bible, but to try to say he never existed is just silly.

[CBR]

Find me a contemporary biography of Alexander. Make sure it's less than 100yrs old, since anything older is apparently suspect. :wink:

lets see...
A drastic change in the political situation in the middle east and lots of cities called Alexandria or something Alex that can be dated to that time.

Several successors and their relatives fighting wars for more than a hundred years in that area after his alleged death. etc etc

All of that fitting nicely with what the sources are telling us, but none of these sources are contemporary, as the early ones are AFAIK all lost but used in later sources so we actually do have some names of these early sources.

These later sources do have problems as they are all describing the person Alexander in slightly different ways. Some of the details are without doubt fantasy but to go so far and say that he never existed would be odd.

Oh and Alexnder was supposed to be a son of a god too but I dont think anyone are worshipping Alexander and Zeus these days.


CBR

[Xiahou]

So you couldnt find one?

I think it'd be really amusing to apply these same comically high standards applied to all historical documents- anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap.~D

[Soulforged]

Its amusing how all these 'enlightened', 'tolerant' people are really so very intolerant of the Church. They can't stop with just not having anything to do with it, they have to actively attack the greatest force for good in the world.
Let me ask you a question Rabbit: Do you toler a bad taste in your mouth?
I think that both the UN and the Red Cross do actually greater good than this mafia, but that's just me. I simply don't support the institutionalization of amorality, but that's just me again.

[CBR]

So you couldnt find one?

I think it'd be really amusing to apply these same comically high standards applied to all historical documents- anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap.~D

I can find secondary sources that tells me where they get their info from (and some of them are primary sources)

None of these Roman writers mentioned tells me where they get their information from and its very limited anyway so it doesnt add anything to the details of Jesus. And in theory they could have walked down the street and asked a Christian who would have told the story. Plinius' info actually comes from questioning Christians before he executed them.

They are great sources for understanding how the Roman society looked at early Christianity and also the sacrifices that Christians were willing to make but nothing more.

And I really dont see how high standards can be considered comical. Is that just when its applied to religion?


CBR

[Byzantine Mercenary]

well i don't see anyone seroiusly questioning the existance of Julius Ceaser do you?
but of course some ''unbiased'' atheists have decided to question the existance of Jesus i wonder why? :dizzy2:

I agree with what you have said Souldforged, thats why im glad my country split from Rome.

[Xiahou]

And I really dont see how high standards can be considered comical. Is that just when its applied to religion?They're only comical when applied with such an obvious double-standard.

All four gospels were written independently, and even vary somewhat yet they accurately name people and places of the time. Yet, we're to believe they totally fabricated the person of Jesus.

Then we have historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all mentioning Jesus to varying degrees. Your explanation? Either they were just suckered into the myth, or in the case of Josephus, the relevant passages were wholly forged. :rolleyes:

There is a preponderance of evidence that would be more than adequate to prove any other person existed- but no, not Jesus. He needs to meet "special" standards to prove his existance because, well, we just don't believe that Christianity mumbo jumbo right? :wink:

[Red Peasant]

To take one example, again Josephus. There are several people by the name of Jesus (i.e. Joshua) mentioned in his history, it was a common name after all. However there is one passage where 'Josephus' says more or less blatantly that the Christian Jesus is truly the messiah or Son of God, or words to that effect (if he truly believed this then he would have become a Christian, but he didn't). It sticks out like a sore thumb. Even a non-scholar, lacking the skills of textual interpretation and philological expertise, can smell a rat. If you read the relevant section this passage does not fit in with the material around it, and it goes against all of Josephus's personal beliefs apparent from the rest of the text, i.e. he didn't believe that there had been a 'messiah' because he believed in the current power of Rome and he wanted Jews to acknowledge that fact. Also, it was only centuries later that this 'incontrovertible' proof was first cited ... by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, I think (a man who advocated lying on behalf of Christianity). The Christians had been constantly changing and inventing texts, including the so-called gospels and the other parts of the NT.

Personally, I believe that there probably was someone called Jesus, but he wasn't the persona concocted in the gospels, or he has at best a tenuous connection with that persona. That was a later construction evolving from the political and religious tensions of Judaea and the early 'Church' (i.e. a Jewish sect) in the mid-1st century.

[Red Peasant]

Its amusing how all these 'enlightened', 'tolerant' people are really so very intolerant of the Church. They can't stop with just not having anything to do with it, they have to actively attack the greatest force for good in the world.
Crazed Rabbit

I know one thing. Under the Christian Empire the number of charges requiring the death penalty in ancient Rome multiplied significantly and these 'criminals' were butchered in the arena. The Christian Romans were more intolerant, and crueller than their pagan forefathers. Yet, the pagans are the ones always condemned by posterity for their 'barbarity'. It is a history written by Christians. Post-Renaissance/Enlightenment ideas and social progress have been much more influential as forces for good in the world, IMO.

[Puzz3D]

I think it'd be really amusing to apply these same comically high standards applied to all historical documents- anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap.
The same standard is being applied, and the standard is not that "anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap".


All four gospels were written independently, and even vary somewhat yet they accurately name people and places of the time. Yet, we're to believe they totally fabricated the person of Jesus.
They were also written at different times. The gospels of Matthew and Luke draw extensively on Mark, so they are not independent. The gospel of John comes considerably later with many elements about Jesus changed. The story of Jesus first appears in Mark with no references to previous sources. Not only no sources, but no one knows who wrote the gospels. Paul's letters predate Mark (the letters that are believed to be authentic not the ones apparently added later by other people) but he never speaks of Jesus as a person who lived on earth or knows about the life of Jesus as told in Mark. Paul has the crucifixtion, ressurection and ascention of Jesus, but they all take place in a mythical realm not on earth. Mark has the crucifixtion, but no resurrection or ascention.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Puzz3D]Paul has the crucifixtion, ressurection and ascention of Jesus, but they all take place in a mythical realm not on earth.QUOTE]
mythical realm, what makes it a mythical realm?

[Just A Girl]

Simple.

Jesus Was alive,
Then he was crucified and he died,
People Wanting something to talk about made Up Storys about how theyd seen him (IMHO)
"they didnt have tv back then"

Thats about it....

There was a guy called jesus.
he died.

Get over it.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

and then naturally they chose to die horrific painful deaths for fun?

And I must point out that while as i said before im not enamored with the Catholic Church both the UN and the Red cross are plauged with the same sort of problems...

this thread has more about it

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=58646

[CBR]

Then we have historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all mentioning Jesus to varying degrees. Your explanation? Either they were just suckered into the myth, or in the case of Josephus, the relevant passages were wholly forged. :rolleyes:


Answer me this then: what sources could these historians have had for Jesus and his life when they were writing 60-90 years after his death? None of them were writting specifically about Christianity, and their short descriptions of Christianity and Jesus were just a small and unimportant part of their books.

Trying to validate the claim would have been basically impossible and would also be a rather pointless waste of their time when its just a quick sidenote about the origins of Christianity.

And yes Josephus's accounts are rather suspect as it appears that some of it has been added later but it is quite possible he did mention Jesus, just not with the actual words we can read today. Even if we are to assume they are authentic, Josephus would also have had a problem validating the story.

Non-Christian Sources (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)

Oh and the gospels are not that independent really "Synoptic problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Problem)


CBR

[Viking]

If there`s ever something as futile as arguing against/for the existance of a God/Jesus/you-name-it, then someone better show it to me.
There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile. It might be a mighty force out there, or it might not, but frankly, I don`t care. People should not care about others faith/lack of fate, either, please! :shame:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Xiahou:

The goal of the ir-religious in this attack is pretty sound, tactically speaking. If you can prove that there never was a Jeshua-bar-Joseph, then any dogma arising from his supposed teachings are inherently fictional. It's like the "decap" strike, kill the head and the rest of the body dies.

You rightly point out that, if we make our standard that of contemporaneously created historical data only, there will be an awful lot of things missing.

Almost everything prior to the invention of writing must, perforce, be discounted unless some type of "fossil" data indicates it as having occurred.

Reviews, summaries, and re-interpretations of all kinds must be heavily discounted -- unless they include the contemporaneous "texts" upon which they are based almost word-for-word.

You can set your standards of review at levels that dictate failure.

Now, to illustrate through absurdity:

Faurisson argues that there is no definitive proof of the extermination of Jews and other enemies of the state by the nazis BECAUSE THERE ARE NO "FIRST PERSON" WITNESSES OF THE DEATH CHAMBERS. Setting the standard for review at this level allows the dismissal of all other (and a voluminous set it is) evidence of the final solution. The fact that any "first person witnesses" would have to be, well, dead, just means that we lack any "concrete" proof.

This is, of course, tripe. The Final Solution stands as a grim reminder of humanity's capacity to do evil to itself even in our modern and "civilized" era. No worthy historian would dispute the occurrence of the Holocaust. No worthy historian would dispute the existence of an Alexandros Megaros son of Phillip -- though many of the particulars of that existence can be disputed. You would think that an analogous standard would be applied in the case of Jeshua, wouldn't you?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I know one thing. Under the Christian Empire the number of charges requiring the death penalty in ancient Rome multiplied significantly and these 'criminals' were butchered in the arena. The Christian Romans were more intolerant, and crueller than their pagan forefathers. Yet, the pagans are the ones always condemned by posterity for their 'barbarity'. It is a history written by Christians.

Source? Sounds like a bunch of lies to me.


Post-Renaissance/Enlightenment ideas and social progress have been much more influential as forces for good in the world, IMO.

Like communism and social darwinism, which lead to nazism? What's that, extactly? Somewhere over 100 million dead, I'd imagine.


Let me ask you a question Rabbit: Do you toler a bad taste in your mouth?
I think that both the UN and the Red Cross do actually greater good than this mafia, but that's just me. I simply don't support the institutionalization of amorality, but that's just me again.

Noone's forcing you to have anything to do with the Church. Your analogy is completely flawed.
You reveal your hate when you condemn Mother Teresa whilst praising the UN, home to the council of human rights, chaired by the worst offenders.

Crazed Rabbit

[BDC]

and then naturally they chose to die horrific painful deaths for fun?

May I point out that every day lots of stupid kids blow themselves up in Iraq? People are idiots. They don't need reason or logic.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Xiahou]

I know one thing. Under the Christian Empire the number of charges requiring the death penalty in ancient Rome multiplied significantly and these 'criminals' were butchered in the arena. The Christian Romans were more intolerant, and crueller than their pagan forefathers. Yet, the pagans are the ones always condemned by posterity for their 'barbarity'. It is a history written by Christians.
Source? Sounds like a bunch of lies to me.Indeed, especially if you consider that gladiator fights were ended under Christian Rome and largely do to Christian protests...


In the end, Christianity dealt the decisive blow to the gladiator games. After Emperor Constantine made the new faith the Roman Empire's official religion in 337 AD, Christian gladiator critics became more outspoken. Their denunciations echoed earlier reservations expressed by emperor (Marcus Aurelius) and intellectual (Cicero, Seneca) alike.

The Christian position was influenced, no doubt, by their own experience in the arena. As a religious minority that did not recognize the Roman pantheon, Christians, like Jews, were suspect. Thousands are believed to have died in Rome's Colosseum, burned alive, tied onto racks for lions or leopards to devour, or otherwise used as prey for the wild animal hunts that were an essential part of the games.

The limitations on gladiators began slowly, but with great effect. In 200, women gladiators - always a source of debate - were banned from fighting. In 365, humans could no longer be thrown to wild animals - always a spectator high point. The imperial gladiator schools closed 34 years later.

In 404 AD, when spectators at the Colosseum killed a Christian named Tetramachus who had tried to stop a gladiator fight, Emperor Honorarius's action was swift: gladiator combat was banned.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warriorchallenge/gladiators/time.html
I think someone's bias is showing. :rolleyes:

[CBR]

Faurisson argues that there is no definitive proof of the extermination of Jews and other enemies of the state by the nazis BECAUSE THERE ARE NO "FIRST PERSON" WITNESSES OF THE DEATH CHAMBERS. Setting the standard for review at this level allows the dismissal of all other (and a voluminous set it is) evidence of the final solution. The fact that any "first person witnesses" would have to be, well, dead, just means that we lack any "concrete" proof.

This is, of course, tripe. The Final Solution stands as a grim reminder of humanity's capacity to do evil to itself even in our modern and "civilized" era. No worthy historian would dispute the occurrence of the Holocaust. No worthy historian would dispute the existence of an Alexandros Megaros son of Phillip -- though many of the particulars of that existence can be disputed. You would think that an analogous standard would be applied in the case of Jeshua, wouldn't you?

And this is also a very clever tactic because who would be in their right mind to question early Christian sources when you just compared that to denying Holocaust! Godwin's Law anyone?


CBR

[Kralizec]

Xiahou: Constantine DIED in 337, and he never elevated christianity to state religion. All he did was legalise it with his edict of Milan in 313 IIRC, stopping the persecutions. Christianity became the state religion under his successor Theodosius.

[Soulforged]

Noone's forcing you to have anything to do with the Church. Your analogy is completely flawed.Not me, but the world doesn't revolves around me Rabbit. And the analogy has this meaning: if I see anything that I don't like I tolerate it, but if it begins to mess with my business or other people business then I will spit it out.

You reveal your hate when you condemn Mother Teresa whilst praising the UN, home to the council of human rights, chaired by the worst offenders.Oh yes the infamous comments against that old lady, well if I remember it well you went out of the discussion when I admited to follow that journalist in the subject, so you automatically judged me. But of course loosing objectivity is not only my mistake, yes I hate Teresa, happy. No please either refute my allegations of Teresa or correct where I was wrong in my previous post.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And this is also a very clever tactic because who would be in their right mind to question early Christian sources when you just compared that to denying Holocaust! Godwin's Law anyone?

CBR

Oh come now, I had labeled it as "illustration through absurdity," to indicate that I was going overboard to point up my theme.

X had asserted that there were no (surviving) completely contemporaneous accounts of Alexander either, but that the preponderence of references to him thereafter were substantial cause to accept that he had lived and done something memorable enough to be written/talked about.

He was, of course, suggesting that the number of accounts referencing Jesus suggests strongly that such an individual lived. His Godhood (though an article of faith with me) and specific incidents in his life are less "confirmable" as is the case with Alexander.

I don't think X's point is unreasonable.

[Quietus]

May I point out that every day lots of stupid kids blow themselves up in Iraq? People are idiots. They don't need reason or logic. People are promised to go to Heaven. Since one human function is survival, that person was fooled into believing he/she will survive his/her suicide nonetheless and live forever in Heaven. It's a reward system and the prize is immortality.

[Quietus]

If there`s ever something as futile as arguing against/for the existance of a God/Jesus/you-name-it, then someone better show it to me.
There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile. It might be a mighty force out there, or it might not, but frankly, I don`t care. People should not care about others faith/lack of fate, either, please! :shame:

With regards to God, there's no proof that a God exists, that's the proof.

If I accuse you of killing 10 people, what proof do I have? I have none, that's your proof you didn't kill anyone. You won't say "I may or may have killed people" because there's no proof on either side.

[Red Peasant]

Indeed, especially if you consider that gladiator fights were ended under Christian Rome and largely do to Christian protests...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warriorchallenge/gladiators/time.html
I think someone's bias is showing. :rolleyes:

I was talking about ordinary convicted 'criminals', who continued to be executed in the arena.

You changed the subject to gladiators who were essentially professional sportsmen, aside from the occasional amateur dilettante. The survival rate was over 90%, and apart from the demanding training, they were pampered: lots of wine, beautiful women, partying, personal masseurs, bathing facilities, and win bonuses equal to a year's pay for a legionary, and a lot more for those who were very good. Trainers and sponsors could not afford to be killing off their substantial investments in these 'sportsmen'. You are misguided by the huge body counts in 'Gladiator'. Many of them were volunteers, it was a lucrative career option.

By 404 those spectators you mention would most probably have been Christians. The Games and the Circus races (which were much more popular) were on their last legs by this period anyway, as was Rome and the Western Empire. The infrastructure and economic basis required to support them had long been disappearing. The last recorded Gladiatorial fights in Rome itself were in the mid 5C, so Honorius' decree was not obviously the last word and Roman Christians continued to enjoy their sports. You don't take away a people's fun that easily, especially when you are a weak, absentee emperor...and a cold-blooded murderer like Honorius to boot.

[cegorach]

Someone has a great desire to become famous, silly old man...

Another thread with educated people 'revealing the truth about the GREATEST EVIL, bla, bla, bla' :laugh4:

So typical...

Maybe if you are so much for Human Rights and etc. you could fight a real evil risking something than beeing bashed in an internet forum, fight a real dictatorship, mind-controlling despot - in March there are elections in Belorus which will be rigged for sure and there will be protests as well, why not you come there and stand against the real danger of beeing beaten, arrested or killed - I am going, what about you HEROES :laugh4:


Regards Cegorach

[Divinus Arma]

I didn't read much of anybody's posts. I went to the link that Xiahou provided but that was pretty silly. Innocent until proven guilty is the same as believe the bible until it is proven false? That doesn't sound very logical.
Take this outlandish story and believe in it until you can prove it is wrong with evidence.

Hey. I flew using my arms as power yesterday. Prove that I am wrong.

Not to be insulting, but God gave us logic and reason. We should be skeptical about things until we are convinced otherwise.


I was a Christian for a month. Yep. Born again, cried and everything. A month later I realized what was required for me to be a christain. I must suspend logic and reason. Or, as christians call it, have faith.

Faith is believing in something you cannot prove to be true. I think that God does not want us to have "faith". I think he wants us to explore his miracle and be amazed at the mechanical workings of it. I think he wants us to prove his existence scientifically. Then faith is unnecessary, and we can truly choose whether or not to obey his will or not without the self-serving denial that we can adopt when we don't have all the facts.

Original Sin is BS; it is the instillation of a conscience through an event or series of events that we have no record of.
Therefore, my soul does not need to be saved.
Jesus is a man, and I shall not worship him before God. I don't need a middle man and God is quite available to me when I need guidance and strength, thank you very much.

Ultimately, assume that hell does exist. And, of course, assuming that you have children, there will always exist the small chance that little johnny may not accept that Jesus is God and therefore go to hell. Therefore, Isn't it better to not have kids then to subject them to the possibility of spending an eternity in hell? And if it is better to not have kids because you are a compasionate person and wish no opportunity for eternal damnation on anyone, then nobody should have kids. And thus ends the human race. Hell, christianity, sin, and forgiveness run counter to the survival of the human species.

On the plus side, Christianity brings those who choose not to think to God, and gives them the behavioral guidance they need in order for man to sustain a civilized society. Oh. And the churcha maka da mula.

[CBR]

X had asserted that there were no (surviving) completely contemporaneous accounts of Alexander either, but that the preponderence of references to him thereafter were substantial cause to accept that he had lived and done something memorable enough to be written/talked about.

He was, of course, suggesting that the number of accounts referencing Jesus suggests strongly that such an individual lived. His Godhood (though an article of faith with me) and specific incidents in his life are less "confirmable" as is the case with Alexander.

I don't think X's point is unreasonable.

And the main difference between these later sources on Alexander's life and the few Roman sources casually mentioning Jesus is that 1)The sources on Alexander's life goes in much detail and 2)They mention what sources they are using.

But do check the link I provided on the non-Christian Sources as that goes in depth about them and what other scholars think too. Jeffery Jay Lowder explains it much better than I'm able to.

So yes I do think X's point is unreasonable as he appears to consider the sources to be of equal quality. He thinks that if we are to dismiss the later Roman sources mentioning Jesus, then surely we must dismiss the ones writing about Alexander as they are even further away from the actual events. And that is a very simplistic view that doesnt take into account what the sources are saying as well as where they get their info from.

As I hinted, with my comment on Alexander being the son of Zeus, I actually do think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So yes I dont believe in, to use X's own words, "that Christianity mumbo jumbo" just as well as I dont believe in any other mumbo jumbo.


CBR

[Strike For The South]

I was a Christian for a month. Yep. Born again, cried and everything. A month later I realized what was required for me to be a christain. I must suspend logic and reason. Or, as christians call it, have faith.


Man Ive been a christian for 15 years and havent cried....pansy~D :hide: ~;p

[Viking]

With regards to God, there's no proof that a God exists, that's the proof.

Nope, that`s a fact.


If I accuse you of killing 10 people, what proof do I have? I have none, that's your proof you didn't kill anyone. You won't say "I may or may have killed people" because there's no proof on either side.

No, but no one knows whether there is a God or not, it`s a matter of belief, no matter if you are religious or an atheist.

The burden of proof lies upon the one that makes a claim, but that`s not the same as that the claim is false if there is no proof. Then you either believe in what that person said, or you don`t. It`s a matter of a faith, and faith only.

[Quietus]

Nope, that`s a fact.Where's the proof?


No, but no one knows whether there is a God or not, it`s a matter of belief, no matter if you are religious or an atheist. Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? Yes? No? Or You can't make the determination?


The burden of proof lies upon the one that makes a claim, but that`s not the same as that the claim is false if there is no proof. Then you either believe in what that person said, or you don`t. It`s a matter of a faith, and faith only. Right, if you wipe the slate clean, there's no God, because there's no proof. You start from Zero. Claiming God means going right to 1. Claiming 1 is not true (no God doesn't mean going left to -1) you simply stay at Zero where the slate is clean.

[Viking]

Where's the proof?

Ok, it isn`t a fact, but it isn`t a proof either.


Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? Yes? No? Or You can't make the determination?

Maybe, maybe not. A such monster would be easily observable, I imagine, thus its existance is unlikely because of lack of observations. I do not know, however.


Right, if you wipe the slate clean, there's no God, because there's no proof. You start from Zero. Claiming God means going right to 1. Claiming 1 is not true (no God doesn't mean going left to -1) you simply stay at Zero where the slate is clean.

No. Then you have made a claim, and the burdon of proof is now upon you, too.
If I claim that I have made cold fusion and tell you how, you might claim that it isn`t possible. Then, you will have to prove that, if I refuse to prove anything. You cannot know if you don`t disprove it.
Same if I claim that I am a god. If you say that I am not, then you`ll have to prove it.

[Quietus]

Ok, it isn`t a fact, but it isn`t a proof either.


Maybe, maybe not. A such monster would be easily observable, I imagine, thus its existance is unlikely because of lack of observations. I do not know, however. Leprechauns, Unicorns, Chupacabra, Loch Ness monster, Dragons, Yeti, Chimera, Gargoyles, Minotaurs, et al?


No. Then you have made a claim, and the burdon of proof is now upon you, too.
If I claim that I have made cold fusion and tell you how, you might claim that it isn`t possible.
Then, you will have to prove that, if I refuse to prove anything. You cannot know if you don`t disprove it.
Same if I claim that I am a god. If you say that I am not, then you`ll have to prove it. Ok. Start from Nothing (clean slate).

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

I say there's earth 2, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.
You say cold fusion, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

[Viking]

Leprechauns, Unicorns, Chupacabra, Loch Ness monster, Dragons, Yeti, Chimera, Gargoyles, Minotaurs, et al?

Yes. If you make claim that there is a monster under my bed, then I can just go and have a look and see that it indeed isn`t.
Claim that Yeti exist, and I`ll go and have a look. Himalay is however huge, and to conclude that Yeti doesn`t exist is close to impossible. I could be be lucky and find him if he exist, so proving existance is easier than disproving. But the lack of real evidences when they should have been easily seen, makes their existance unlikely.
Dragons can be disproved by scientifically method, I believe.




Ok. Start from Nothing (clean slate).

I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.


No proof does not equal non-existant. If I claim that there is a black stone on the Moon without having a proof for it, it could still easily exist.


I say there's earth 2, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.
You say cold fusion, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

I don`t see where you are going.

[Quietus]

Yes. If you make claim that there is a monster under my bed, then I can just go and have a look and see that it indeed isn`t.
Claim that Yeti exist, and I`ll go and have a look. Himalay is however huge, and to conclude that Yeti doesn`t exist is close to impossible. I could be be lucky and find him if he exist, so proving existance is easier than disproving. But the lack of real evidences when they should have been easily seen, makes their existance unlikely.
Dragons can be disproved by scientifically method, I believe. In short, Yes or No? Or Maybe?

Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?


No proof does not equal non-existant. If I claim that there is a black stone on the Moon without having a proof for it, it could still easily exist.But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.

Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.

What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.


I don`t see where you are going. You're starting from a positive (1) not a neutral position (0). So, if you say God, that's already a positive. If I say Earth, that's a positive.

If I say Earth 2, that's a positive. What Earth 2? It doesn't exist.


[QUOTE=Reenk Roink]:focus:

Ahem...

Most futile debate going on right now...

Viking click here for new thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1028753

[Reenk Roink]

:focus:

Ahem...

Most futile debate going on right now...

[ajaxfetish]

lets see...
A drastic change in the political situation in the middle east and lots of cities called Alexandria or something Alex that can be dated to that time.

Several successors and their relatives fighting wars for more than a hundred years in that area after his alleged death. etc etc

All of that fitting nicely with what the sources are telling us, but none of these sources are contemporary, as the early ones are AFAIK all lost but used in later sources so we actually do have some names of these early sources.

These later sources do have problems as they are all describing the person Alexander in slightly different ways. Some of the details are without doubt fantasy but to go so far and say that he never existed would be odd.

Oh and Alexnder was supposed to be a son of a god too but I dont think anyone are worshipping Alexander and Zeus these days.


CBR

hmm, lets see . . .
A drastic change in the religious situation in the middle east and lots of people calling themselves Christians can be dated to that time.

Several sects and schisms carrying on theological disputes for more than two thousand years after his alleged death. etc etc

All of that fitting nicely with what the sources are telling us, but none of these sources are contemporary, as the early ones are AFAIK all lost but probably used in later sources though we may not actually have some names of these early sources.

These later sources do have problems as they are all describing the person Christ in slightly different ways. Some of the details are without doubt fantasy but to go so far and say that he never existed would be odd.

. . . there does seem to be a bit of a double-standard ~:)

Ajax

edit: to add a smily . . . no bad will intended

[Just A Girl]

Hey People.
Befoe you continue try to think of life like this,

If you have faith you can live your life Without Worrying what will happen to you when you die,
You can be happy to die Knowing that You have faith that you will be taken to heaven.

Or you can be like me without faith,
Logically disecting every little bit of life untill you Relize, Theres going to be no life at all in the end.
Any where, No earth no sun no humans no planets. Just One big huge Copmpacted star that has long ago spent its energy And Compacted its self in to A HUGE black hole which will continue to suck matter in to itself.

(any kind of luck its mass will get to great and it will explode creating a nother big bang
"the chances of that happening forever and ever in to eternaty most definatly is not 100%")

Staying awake At night Knowing That all life will end, And thats the end of it all plain SUX!

Try to think of how depressed others may feel when they become to accept your non religious way of thinking.

Let People beleve in religion. I wont say it wont do no harm, Cos we all see the religious Wars, But atleast these days there killing them selfs, And not the inocent pagans or athists which could be and previously were targeted as heratics.

The alternative to religion is cold and bleak.
And really who needs that in this world we live in.

[Red Peasant]

Thanks for that, all is now clear. I am converted to Just a Girlism and I will sit around all day, everyday, for the rest of my life knowing that I can go to heaven because I believe in the God-that-has-a-heaven. I didn't realise I was so unhappy before this revelation. :elephant:

You have a point though, and I don't mind what people believe, until it impinges on my life, or threatens to.

[CBR]

hmm, lets see . . .
A drastic change in the religious situation in the middle east and lots of people calling themselves Christians can be dated to that time.

A new religion came into that existence but it took a few hundred years to actual call it a drastic change so we can't say lots of people were Christians back then. And as Jesus travelled in a very small area how did the religion spread then? By people (especially Paul in the early beginnings) spreading the word and some who liked those words. Pretty much all who converted would never have seen Jesus nor his miracles. And of course Paul just saw Jesus in a vision so he wasnt even a witness but that didnt stop him from preaching his version of Christianity.


Several sects and schisms carrying on theological disputes for more than two thousand years after his alleged death. etc etc

And there even older religions that exists today but does that mean their miracles and gods are true too?


. . . there does seem to be a bit of a double-standard ~:)

Oh yes indeed. Miracles, gods and visions are apparently to be taken as facts ~:)
Now of course that doesnt mean Jesus never existed and if people want to believe that Jesus is the son of their god then fine by me.


CBR

[Just A Girl]

Jesus Existed. NON debatable IMO.
If he was The son of God is debatable.
"I Hope thats not the topic cos were in for a long night if that 1 kicks off."

And christanity was also helped to be spread by the romans after they "EVENTUALY" accepted it as their cheif religion,
And then all i care to remember about christianity is that It murderd so many pagans and other religions to force the new beileiff,

So i guess All that killing and burning people alive at the steak untill they renounced their faith kinda helped a little With "A drastic change in the religious situation"

But i dont see how thats anything to do with, the issue of if Jesus existed or not.

if you ignore the religious aspects of it
there was a Guy called jesus, And he was a carpenter, he told some good tales of how to live.
People liked him and he was talked about
(no tv's People talk to eachother n stuff)
storys spread and 1/2 the people who told em now never met him.
so jesus did exist,
and the romans killed him,

i dont see how they can say jesus did not exist.

[Watchman]

Personally, I fail to see the point in denying the existence of a man called Jesus (or Josephus) who was considered the Son of God by some and who managed to pull off a fairly rare and impressive trick, that of spawning a whole new world religion. His historical existence or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant compared to his existence as a concept.

Now, I'm no big fan of Christianity, but I can dig many of the basic points Jesus is claimed to have preached - "peace and hippie love", as one pundit put it. Plus the promise of universal salvation not tied to one's ethnicity, gender or whatever if one only accepts certain articles of faith - I can appreciate the equal-opportunity nature of that, compared to many others. And I fail to see what's wrong with an ideology of being nice to other people and so on.

'Course, He would probably have a fit if you resurrected him and showed him what his followers eventually ended up doing, but you can hardly fault a prophet for what his distant follower dream up a millenia after his death now can you ?

I also became a staunch agnostic a long time ago once I realized arguing against the existence of the divine is exactly as silly and futile as arguing for it; and moreover it's really just another religious dogma, save one of negation. So I don't bother with that junk and instead save my ammo for instances where disagreeable people seek to employ articles of subjective faith as blunt instruments or arguments in contexts where they are entirely inappropriate, or generally seek to bother other people with them - it is a sad fact that seemingly nine times out of ten those religious enough to put forth arguments based on faith do so for stale, reactionary and discriminatory causes that only ever caused much grief and did nothing good to anyone.

As another pundit recently wrote, "perhaps the problem of the Church is that so many true believers are still a part of it..."

A shame really, as most major religions could do a lot of good - and have done - when they've managed to avoid pungent ossification and sought to genuinely help people.

[ajaxfetish]

I wasn't arguing for his miracles or divinity. That's definitely a matter of faith. The double-standard seems to be in simply allowing his existence. We may not have as much evidence for it as we do for many historical personalities, but we have more than we do for many others. Accepting or at least allowing the plausibility of his existence is not the same as accepting the religion attributed to him. It's really not that threatening, though it seems to appear that way to some of us.

Ajax

[Byzantine Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Just A Girl]
And then all i care to remember about christianity is that It murderd so many pagans and other religions to force the new beileiff,

So i guess All that killing and burning people alive at the steak untill they renounced their faith kinda helped a little With "A drastic change in the religious situation"
QUOTE]
blaming christians for those past attrocities would be like blameing a german child for the holocaust, compleately ridiculous, its not Jesus's fault that a few of his so called followers have over the years compleately ignored ALL his teachings and deemed it right (when it totally isn't) to kill in the name of christianity.

the ''religious wars'' you hear about like the crusades were faught for power and money and not because of Christianity, should i blame you and say that all atheists are prone to violence if an atheist kills someone? of course not. It is not christianity's fault if a few liars have used christianity as an excuse for evil in their power struggles.

back on topic does anyone know how this case has progressed?

[Red Peasant]

The historicity of Jesus Christ is of the most fundamental importance to Christianity. Unlike the plethora of other dying and rising gods originating in the East in antiquity (with whom he shares many attributes), Christians uniquely claimed that their's was a real, flesh-and-blood human being, walking amongst them, the son of the one god. By casting doubt over his historicity -and it is possible to do so- you undermine a basic concept of Christianity. You can't be a 'Christian', as I was taught, without believing these basic tenets, not a real one anyway.

Personally, I believe that there was someone called Jesus, a radical rabble-rouser (or is that 'wadical wabble-wouser') of the type common in Judea at the time, who was crucified by the Romans. The weight of evidence, however circumstantial and whatever its quality, inclines one to think that he existed. The religion they later constructed around this guy had nothing directly to do with him. But that, as you say, is another matter altogether.

[ajaxfetish]

I'll agree with that. Casting doubt on Jesus' existence is attacking a fundamental tenet of Christianity, though it would be impossible to prove his non-existence, as stated earlier in this thread. The amount of evidence for his existence seems sufficient to me, though I don't think we have enough to be 'historically' sure of many details (we can probably say he lived in Judaea, had some following, and was executed, more than that I don't think we can).

Beyond that it comes down to faith, which is outside the realm of history or science. If we start (or continue) arguing for or against Jesus' divinity we'll be arguing within two different paradigms and communication/understanding will be lost. There's no point to that kind of argument. I won't make a claim one way or the other on that issue. My beliefs are my own, and everyone else is welcome to theirs. As to his existence, it may not be certain, but it seems unreasonable to me to deny it.

Ajax

[master of the puppets]

i'm not saying jebus did'nt exist, i'm just saying hre does'nt exist in heaven.

[Just A Girl]

Byzantine Mercenary

Im not saying I hate christians.
All im saying is,
If they had not murderd and tortured so many people for so many years forcing them to convert,
Christianity would have died out a long time ago.

And any way AFAIK, jesus never wished for any 1 to create a religion in his name,
And wasnt he Jewish any way?

Heres some on topic stuff i guess.
Taken from,
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jesus.htm
"A Palestinian Jew named Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities during the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14—37), who was Augustus’ successor. At the time, few people paid much attention to what proved to be one of the most pivotal events in world history"

[Roark]

Died out? Rubbish. The imperialism and forced conversion are one of the reasons that Christianity is so prolific, but to say that it would have died out otherwise is grossly presumptuous. One of its greatest periods of growth was when it existed as an illegal cult of noncombatants.

[Just A Girl]

Any illigal or Cult religion seems to gather A following prety fast,
Even these Suicid pact cultists.
but to veer away from that side of the argument. paganism was doing well untill christians came and killed them,
And the 1s they didnt kill had to abandon their belefes and Convince there children to be christians becous they FEARD what would happen to them if they were taught to love the planet and the eliments.
Granted Prehaps Saying it would have "died out" without this "clensing" is a bit of a presumtion,

but then again To say the Aztecs religion , paganism, or the egyptians religion would die out before it happend would have also been a presumtion,
Although this is what happend.

But thats a totaly diferent debate...

back on topic though..
Any feed back on the link i provided.
Shurley it gives more information about the person Known as jesus Christ.
Whos existance we are debating.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Any illigal or Cult religion seems to gather A following prety fast,
Even these Suicid pact cultists.
but to veer away from that side of the argument. paganism was doing well untill christians came and killed them,
And the 1s they didnt kill had to abandon their belefes and Convince there children to be christians becous they FEARD what would happen to them if they were taught to love the planet and the eliments.
Granted Prehaps Saying it would have "died out" without this "clensing" is a bit of a presumtion,

but then again To say the Aztecs religion , paganism, or the egyptians religion would die out before it happend would have also been a presumtion,
Although this is what happend.

But thats a totaly diferent debate...

back on topic though..
Any feed back on the link i provided.
Shurley it gives more information about the person Known as jesus Christ.
Whos existance we are debating.
christianity was not forced on many of the tribes that took it up, the Goths that sacked rome were christians! Rome was dieing out when christianity was doing a lot of its growing and wouldn't have had the power to force their enemys to change theri beliefs. Christianity in contrast to many of the contemperary roman cults lacked the secrets that were the real draw to such religions and had quite demanding rules for someone who wanted to follow it because its Illegal.

Ive looked at the source you mention, its interesting, but is made up of opinion as much as fact, the truth is he lived such a long time ago that we can't be sure of all the facts, part of the reason that i believe the new testament to give a reasonabley accurate portrail of Jesus is the parts when his teachings contradict the actions of the church and so would have been removed if the bible had been edited by the church.

[Just A Girl]

My Memory's bad.
BUT,

I think i found the roman i was looking 4.

Emperor Constantine had made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, then centered in Constantinople. After his death subsequent imperial decrees were aimed at stamping out Paganism. An edict in 340 AD outlawed pagan practices in the Eastern Empire and was imposed universally in 342. In 346 the practice of pagan worship became punishable by death.
----------------------------------------------

Now.

I also remember A Christian Roman Marching Across europe Murdering pagans, And burning there sacred trees Which they Worshiped..
This is most evident in saxony.
But I forgotten who it was :(

I thought it was Constantine,
But It could be Some 1 who came after him,

Never the less who ever it was,
They went and Murderd All the pagans and Islamic people they could find (among other religions)

And that is how Christianity spread.

[Reenk Roink]

My Memory's bad.
BUT,

I think i found the roman i was looking 4.

Emperor Constantine had made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, then centered in Constantinople. After his death subsequent imperial decrees were aimed at stamping out Paganism. An edict in 340 AD outlawed pagan practices in the Eastern Empire and was imposed universally in 342. In 346 the practice of pagan worship became punishable by death.
----------------------------------------------

Now.

I also remember A Christian Roman Marching Across europe Murdering pagans, And burning there sacred trees Which they Worshiped..
This is most evident in saxony.
But I forgotten who it was :(

I thought it was Constantine,
But It could be Some 1 who came after him,

Never the less who ever it was,
They went and Murderd All the pagans and Islamic people they could find (among other religions)

And that is how Christianity spread.

People have always spread their ideas through force in history. It is the most effective way of propagating something. It happens today...

Anyway, I think I've said this once already in this thread:

:focus:

[Husar]

Hmm, I say you all know God exists, but you don´t like that and want to make yourselves believe that he doesn´t exist.
Now that´s a fact. If you want proof, be honest to yourself.~;p
If you can´t find any proof, you´re not honest to yourself.

Also, Jesus existed, if you don´t want to believe that, see above.
The devil is a strong power, as one can see in the amount of work some put into trying to disprove the existence of God and Jesus.

And, the Catholic Church is not a christian organization, if you want to know why, read the bible and compare it to what they do, it´s pretty obvious.

And btw, I´m currently studying, so I´m not completely uneducated and stupid, yet I´m a Christian, sorry to let you know, but thinking and using your brain is not against being christian. As a matter of fact, some people here didn´t use their brain trying to do what I said above.

[Leet Eriksson]

Actually, the christians didn't really murdered any islamic peoples before the crusades.

The Eastern Roman empire, although they did get embroiled with a war with the muslims, were pretty open, and didn't really persecute them, when muslims lived in their territory.

[Just A Girl]

People have always spread their ideas through force in history. It is the most effective way of propagating something. It happens today...

Anyway, I think I've said this once already in this thread:

:focus:


Just filling time Whilst i wait for a reply on the link i posted Several posts ago,

I beleve it goes a long way towards helping people Understand that Jesus Was Real,

The debate is not Whether he was the son of god, a profet, or Just a man.
Its whether or not he existed at all...
And acording to the Link i provided he did.

[Just A Girl]

11AM. GMT (today) Less than 1 hour away.
Sky, History channel+ 1

Roman 1st century thing.
LOTS about Jesus.
Also about how christanity spread.....

Lets get educated.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Constantine made christianity legal but only converted himself on his death bed. There were also subsequant pagan emperors who tried to wipe the christians out again.

Ive already commented on your link, of course Jesus existed, i don't think there are many people on this thread who would dissagree, the real question as you said is was he what he said he was.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Hmm, I say you all know God exists, but you don´t like that and want to make yourselves believe that he doesn´t exist.
Now that´s a fact. If you want proof, be honest to yourself.~;p
If you can´t find any proof, you´re not honest to yourself.

Also, Jesus existed, if you don´t want to believe that, see above.
The devil is a strong power, as one can see in the amount of work some put into trying to disprove the existence of God and Jesus.

And, the Catholic Church is not a christian organization, if you want to know why, read the bible and compare it to what they do, it´s pretty obvious.

And btw, I´m currently studying, so I´m not completely uneducated and stupid, yet I´m a Christian, sorry to let you know, but thinking and using your brain is not against being christian. As a matter of fact, some people here didn´t use their brain trying to do what I said above.
my sentiments exactly

[Red Peasant]

Constantine made christianity legal but only converted himself on his death bed. There were also subsequant pagan emperors who tried to wipe the christians out again.

Ive already commented on your link, of course Jesus existed, i don't think there are many people on this thread who would dissagree, the real question as you said is was he what he said he was.

There was only one subsequent pagan emperor, who was actually raised as a Christian, and that was Julian, and he only reigned for three years, hardly enough time to affect the drive towards a Christian establishment over a whole century. He didn't try to wipe out the Christians at all, but to enforce religious tolerance.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

There was only one subsequent pagan emperor, who was actually raised as a Christian, and that was Julian, and he only reigned for three years, hardly enough time to affect the drive towards a Christian establishment over a whole century. He didn't try to wipe out the Christians at all, but to enforce religious tolerance.
Didn't he believe that the rise of christianity was the cause of the recent problems that the roman empire was having and so decided to replace it with paganism again?

if you want to see how a change in the leaders religion can effect the political climate just look at Mary Tudor, she also only reigned for a short time.

[Red Peasant]

Didn't he believe that the rise of christianity was the cause of the recent problems that the roman empire was having and so decided to replace it with paganism again?

That is not the same as the active, wholesale persecution of Christians which you implied, and he only reigned a short time (3 years). Christianity was by far the dominant force in the C4 AD, a position it achieved through the active support of successive emperors. Attacks on pagan institutions, temples, libraries, 'universities', and people were widespread and vicious. It may have taken some time to 'officially' outlaw paganism (which was effected ruthlessly by Theodosius) but the Christian emperors, from Constantine onwards, made sure that it was increasingly impossible for pagans to worship or to take part in public life. The Church became an intimate part of the establishment as well as being highly organized in its own right.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

true, but what about outside the roman world?

i did not mean to imply wholesale persecution just that they were not entirely doninant

[Just A Girl]

From what I Know The only Roman to realy persicute Christians Was NERO,
The adopted Emperor. "or atlest thats what i call him"
He was far from a good Emperor,
And people blamed him for starting a fire that burnt down rome,
He then blamed the christians. Becous they followed "JESUS"
Who just happend to be a criminal.
I beleve that Paul Was the Bigest spreader of christinity,
and he actualy did it in a nice way.

Jesus was a jew and he beleved that you had to be surcumsized exetera and follow the jewish laws.
So not that many converts.
Paul took christs teachings and Allowed it to be more acceptable by telling people That Surcemsision Was not requiered.
And neither did the jewish laws, "well atlest not to the extent jesus had insisted on"

So This Small phaze of christianity being spread by Paul (the old roman soldier who used to persicute Christians, Who was striken by a blinding light and heard the voice of his loard "jesus" speaking to him)
After he converted he spent the rest of his Life Peacfully and compasionatly spreading the word of christ.

if only All christians had been like him.

And the debate Is about Jesus being the son of god?
If thats the case im goint to need to switch sides,

Cos i beleve jesus existed, And i beleve he was A good man,
I dont beleve he was the son of god or a profet.
I beleve he was A man who happend to have a good way with words.

[AntiochusIII]

Erm...Just a Girl, or ShambleS (which one?), the Christians of the 4th century A.D. are indeed "vicious," if that is the right word. Emperors have taken into their hands -- supported by some fanatics that every society have its share -- in the crushing and weakening of Paganism. Constantinople was practically a bastion of Christianity while conservative Rome and her Senate held their pagan traditions much longer, despite heavy pressures from the Emperors. Christianity was on the rise.

Outside of the Roman Empire, where Christians can't reach, paganism -- which is actually a name for all sorts of religions not involving the Big Three and some Oriental ones -- continued. Near the Roman borders, however, barbarians liked Christianity as it gave them favor of the Romans and some church supports -- they had much incentive. The Christian sects also tried to expand, and though the Orthodox/Catholic Christians oppose Arianism, it found much favor among many barbarians.

I think fanatic Christians were also responsible for the burning of the Library of Alexandria and its magnificent collection of knowledge, but I am not certain.

This is by no means an attack on Christianity. At the time, it was just realpolitik of the vicious times of the Late Roman Empires Era.

By the way, the assertions along the lines of "Christianity ruining the Roman Empire" is absurd indeed, and seems to come from common misconceptions and anti-Christianity attacks.

Jesus...I don't know for sure.

I don't know enough to make an authoritative claim, but IMO he should've been alive once and a man.

Prophets...sacrifice their personal identity to assume the role of legends.

[Just A Girl]

Its shambles.
And i havent quite got to 4c ad yet...
As a matter of fact Im in the 1st century...
in this time span Jesus was alive and then he was dead as well.
So a lot actually happened. During this period.
And it must be one of the most important periods For this discussion about Jesus,

now in the beginning I believe romans just let the jews get on with It,
Allowing them to prosecute people for Speaking the name of the lord,
Punishment was stoning.
Well in fact The punishment for almost anything was stoning

So As technically Those jewish people there Then Became christians.
The romans didnt really persecute them that much,
They just tended to let them get on with it

However When Jesus came along and started gaining follower. They razed an eye-brow,
Then there was a Claim that he was the messiah.
And that was when things started to go a bit pear shaped for jesus.

Jesus was now technically a criminal.
And there fore so were his followers, Christianity became a "bad" religion.

So christians were made to be slaves and had to hide and hold secret meetings,
This just made them look even more "dangerous"

now During neros rain. Christianity had a small But Significant following.
So when Rome burnt down and the people blamed Nero he was Inclined to Blame the Christians, As they had always been trouble makers.

However Really Every 1 hated nero Any way.
he was an adopted son of the Last emperor. Who Neros mother murderd.
nero then Murderd his mother as well...
so he was never liked.
This was why rumors of him "fiddeling as rome burnt were spread" Also many accused him of starting the fire to clear ground for a new palace.

So as it is written He Blamed the christians.
but he then made the mistake of Building a Palace After the fire.
Which just helped fan the flames of Rumor that he started the fire to clear land to Build a palace.

Nero's Rain was coming to an end In a MOST dramatic fasion. (Everything about his Rain and coming to power was dramatic)

Any way
Flick past a few pages....

By around 300bc Romans had accepted and adopted christianity as there chief religion,
The benefits For Eternal life for Christians In heaven Was Indeed a nice incentive for The romans and there subjects.

unfortunately Thats about when the persecution starts.

The way Christian Persecuted other religions, HAS to be THE most atrotious way of "cleansing religion" Ever to befall any religion.
INCLUDING THE HOLOCOUST.
The Things christians did from the end of the 1st century,
All the way until The middle ages Were atrocety's And nothing less..

Burning people alive at the steak,
Burning Books of other religions.
Witch hunts To pass the time.

They Even Made The "heretics" family Pay for the wood coal and pete they had used to Burn the poor victim.
The church wasnt actualy "Officialy" apart of the murders.
Thy just heped point out who were the heretics,

The persecution Does not end Until Almost the end of the middle ages,
So in comparison.
The christians were persecuted for aprox 300 years.
Every 1 els was then persecuted for Over a Thousand years.

And i really dont like the Religion that should never have existed,

Jesus was A jew,
he taught jewish teachings.
It was Paul The ex-roman, who Made christianity Acceptable to so many,
"he fundimentaly changed christs teatings to make them more acceptable to others"

jesus and paul wer not Bad people "paul was untill he converted"
it was the people Who followed them that Turned it in to A horrible religion Accountable for the countless Horrific murders of innumerable proportions.

No other religion Was this bad,
Thats why i have a hard time Respecting christian beliefs.
Cos there Not what Jesus Taught, If You followed jesus All christians would Be Jewish.

Also Christians Dont seem to get told in Church
"Today we Will talk about All the people christians murdered"

If you really followed the word of christ as Christians say they do,
They would be jewish,
in-fact You are following the teachings Of Paul.

Now This seems to be going off topic again.

Can some 1 try to rescue this thread please :stwshame:
I am not to good at staying on topic, it seems.

"Sorry"

[Husar]

Also Christians Dont seem to get told in Church
"Today we Will talk about All the people christians murdered"

That is because people who murder aren´t christians...:inquisitive:

[Just A Girl]

ANY WAY!!!....


Whats happend with the court Case :D

[Byzantine Mercenary]

blameing christianity for the atrocitys of some 'christians' on the middle eages is wrong, it would be like blameing you for the rowandan genacide.
Im sorry that you have something against a religion where the golden rules are love god and love your neighbour because those who perpetrated the acts you speak of were either not christians or were lied to by others.

[Just A Girl]

blameing christianity for the atrocitys of some 'christians' on the middle eages is wrong, it would be like blameing you for the rowandan genacide.
Im sorry that you have something against a religion where the golden rules are love god and love your neighbour because those who perpetrated the acts you speak of were either not christians or were lied to by others.


Well The "others" That lied to them,
were the people who founded christianity.
They were the ones who Spread the religion,
they are the reason You are christian now
(i bleve your christian, pleas Excuse my asumption)
So prehaps Its people these days Who arent realy christians.

The founder of christianity was not jesus.
like the founder of the John wayne fan club would Not have been John wayne,

jesus was a jew.
Jewish laws is what jesus taught Not christian values.

And i dont think hed be to happy to see what they did In his name.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Well The "others" That lied to them,
were the people who founded christianity.
They were the ones who Spread the religion,
they are the reason You are christian now
(i bleve your christian, pleas Excuse my asumption)
So prehaps Its people these days Who arent realy christians.
no, it was not all the people that founded christianity most of them were good people who suffered greatly for their faith and whom you have no right to judge, however i agree that some, particularly in the Roman Catholic church did spread the wrong message and use christianity as an excuse for evil (im talking mainly about the crusades). I am part of the church that split from rome because of this, i am a protestant and protestants follow the teachings of jesus not the Pope (who i have nothing against, the last pope in particular was a truly great man) that is the reason that i am a christian now.


The founder of christianity was not jesus.
like the founder of the John wayne fan club would Not have been John wayne,christianity is based on Jesus teachings what you are saying is like saying that the members of the John Wayne fan club don't like John Wayne!


jesus was a jew.
Jewish laws is what jesus taught Not christian values. ,
which is why we christians follow the torah in the form of the old testament, the values that he brought are totally in line with what we follow today and Jewish law after you remove the parts that jesus himself disaproved of.

And i dont think hed be to happy to see what they did In his name.[/QUOTE]
I agree, if you mean the travisties (such as the crusades) that you mentioned

[Just A Girl]

you have missunderstood what i ment about the john wayne fan club..

some 1 who liked john wayne made the fan club, And people who agreed join. I di not say anything about dissliking..

And Jesus Aproved of all the Jewish laws... It was Paul that changed them
Jesus Insisted on surcumsizion.
Paul changed it so surcumsision was not requierd, he alos droped out jewish laws about eating on the sabath ans such, laws which jesus him self enforced.
Paul did this so more would be willing to convert.

Paul traveld the world spreading the word of christ
(in a good way no murders nothing)
paul had other followers of christ to stay in rome and teach HIS VERSION of Christs message,

after paul had traveld for a while he heard that the people he had left in rome had converted back to the origional teachings of christ,
requiering all converts to be surcumziesed as jesus him self had wanted.


Thatx to this We have letters from Paul himself.
Writing telling the others in rome That He was upset becous of What they were doing,
Asking them who had lead them astray,
From his letter you can hear the compassion in his words, And the hurt he felt.
This is Some what incredible,
As paul used to be Saul. The turkish born roman soldier Who had Murders and persicuted Many christians,

It is written.
that Saul was walking to damascus one day activly looking for christians to persicute When he saw a blinding light and a vision of a cross.
Then he heard a voice ask him "why do you persicute me"
This was the voice of Jesus,
the man he would now call his lord.

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/paul.htm
^more about paul.^

[Byzantine Mercenary]

And Jesus Aproved of all the Jewish laws... It was Paul that changed them
Jesus Insisted on surcumsizion.
Paul changed it so surcumsision was not requierd, he alos droped out jewish laws about eating on the sabath ans such, laws which jesus him self enforced.
Paul did this so more would be willing to convert.

Paul traveld the world spreading the word of christ
(in a good way no murders nothing)
paul had other followers of christ to stay in rome and teach HIS VERSION of Christs message,

after paul had traveld for a while he heard that the people he had left in rome had converted back to the origional teachings of christ,
requiering all converts to be surcumziesed as jesus him self had wanted.


Thatx to this We have letters from Paul himself.
Writing telling the others in rome That He was upset becous of What they were doing,
Asking them who had lead them astray,
From his letter you can hear the compassion in his words, And the hurt he felt.
This is Some what incredible,
As paul used to be Saul. The turkish born roman soldier Who had Murders and persicuted Many christians,

It is written.
that Saul was walking to damascus one day activly looking for christians to persicute When he saw a blinding light and a vision of a cross.
Then he heard a voice ask him "why do you persicute me"
This was the voice of Jesus,
the man he would now call his lord.

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/paul.htm
^more about paul.^
jesus did not agree with all jewish law, this is why the pharasees opposed him he himself said that he had come the uproot the plants (representing teachings) that others had added to the jewish faith. He treated un circumcised romans such as the centurian just the same as the others, it was faith that he realy valued.

[Just A Girl]

Any way mf...

This debat although interesting seems to be at a halt.
Now we seem to simply be discussing The teachings,
Prior to that we were discussing how christianity spread.

I dont see much of a debate here.

And the topic has gone Way off track now.
We should really not discuss it futher in here.
as this topic Is about a court case, not the teachings of christ or how christianity was spread.

Il be the 1st to admit I had a hand in derailing this thread,
But atleast Now i am trying to fix it :)

I hope that you do not mind if we disscontinue this,
the chances are We will soon find a thread that will allow the debate to continue.

But its been very nice talking to you.
I am more accustomed To people Spouting nonsence and geting agressive when religion is concerned.

So yeah, It truly was a pleasure.
:bow:

[Just A Girl]

Mf = My freind....

I sent you a pm as i have no edit and a 120 sec flood count.
I hope you receved the PM before reading the post,
as it has happend b4 when MF has been taken to mean something Entierly diferent.

Its a habbit of mine to type as though im in a MP game,
so Words are often shortend.

Hopefully the pm arived with you 1st.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

i guessed from the rest of your post that was what you meant

[Husar]

Mr Shambles, assuming that Paul was led by the holy spirit, he DID spread Jesus´ version.
And Jesus let his followers eat on the fields at sabbath, against the jewish law, so I can´t see where he was enforcing it. He also healed at sabbath, which upset the jews back then.

[Just A Girl]

I beleve Your not allowed to eat eggs on a sabath....

Read one of Pauls letters. There in the bible Some place,
Should shed more light on my interpretation of the situation.

Please bear in mind that Im still in the 1st century bc and trying to learn as much as i can about that era,
So i could have a few facts in the wrong order,
and a few things incorrect.