Printable View
Well judging by your responses in this thread and other you should ask for your tuition back. PS did you pass?Quote:
LOL, no I told you I studied New Testament when I first went to college.
No wonder they dont make sense :laugh4: I thought it was some other kook :laugh4:Quote:
Those are my words, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Uh, which part do you not understand? I'll walk you through it if you need.
:egypt:
This sounds extremely odd to me. Could you please provide the exact Chapter and Verse that you saw this in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Under what circumstances do you figure another man will become more famous than Jesus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
True that in today's time it is "chic" to promote animosity towards God and/or hatred towards God and what follows is the same to Jesus Christ also. But in 200 years from now no one is going to remember all the popular "hate God because it's chic to" authors & speakers of today. But Jesus will still be as famous as ever.
One other thing I will say about the OP's choice of words. This is a decidedly western-thinking thread. While 'christianity' does have the largest subscriber (yes I chose that word purposefully) base, there are just as many muslims and hindus (right word?) combined out there. Saying that "Jesus is the most popular person in the world" is quite a bit of a stretch there.
I though they were started by the apostles who claimed that Christ had sent them the message of hope and redemption. So there were no 12 apostles according to you.Quote:
. The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.
Quote:
Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century and early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote the mythical Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid "Jesus actions" or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them
Then they were stupid or uniformed.
How about the gospels of Mathew and Luke from around 60 - 80 AD?
Thats right there were no apostles. This nativity thing started long before your writers came about. Im not claiming it really happened but many Christians believe it from the get go. As you said it was common in many religions.
Nothing you have posted adresses my question. Were there 12 apostles and if there were why were they willing to die for preaching the word of a man who never existed.Quote:
There are some scriptures that claim Jesus lived and was persecuted a century before the time period, and others that claim other dates. It is clear that there were many local myths and god-man legends (Persian, jewish, Egyptian, and Greek) that were combined in the person of Jesus later by the authors of the Gospels.
sure.
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." --Hebrews 8:4
as I said before, Paul has no knowledge of a historical figure of Jesus. He is writing in the first decades after the foundation of christianity and his Jesus is a purely metaphysical spirit. It was not until a hundred years later that the first Gospels would be written, trying to create a god-man who walked the earth.
Don't worry. Almost all biblical scholars agree that Paul did not write the Letter to the Hebrews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The quote is somewhat correct (although there is no "if Jesus had been" or "he would not even have been" words in the actual Bible) but statements here regarding what the quote is actually saying are completely incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
He never said Jesus did not live on the Earth. Another translation clarifies this more so that perhaps people don't get confused by the old language as it seems has happened here. What the statement means is "If then He were still living on earth".
All he was saying there is that if Jesus were still alive on the Earth, it is not fitting for him to be a priest, because the priests are corrupt, and Jesus is pure and godly.
Im sure you can prove that. Tell me why is their no mention in the Gospels of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.?Quote:
It was not until a hundred years later that the first Gospels would be written, trying to create a god-man who walked the earth.
Most likely they were written between 50 and 60 ad IMO .
Here try this on for size
QQuote:
f we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
* "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
* "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4
For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Acts
Luke 24
Whoever "he" was because it almost certainly was not Paul.
More likely Mathew , Luke , Mark and John.Quote:
Whoever "he" was because it almost certainly was not Paul.
If Jesus is not the most famous man in the world and all of history, then let's specifically name another man who is more famous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
OH please, dont start with fallacy. Matthew is dated to 70 AD at the earliest, and `110 AD at the latest. Most scholars place it at the turn of the century. Dont claim it was written in 50. Mark is the absolute earliest at around 70. THe Gospel of Judas is contemporary with Luke, by the way.
And why would they put the destruction of the temple? they were trying to re-write history as it was to make their allegory fit the historical record.
Most of the elements of their story are blatant copies from the Talmud, but even the parts they weave in to try and make sense are ludicrous. The Sanhedrin meeting on the Sabbath just to judge Jesus?? A Roman Governor (or procurator as Tacitus tells us), releasing a hardended criminal over a wilderness prophet, a murderer who had slain Roman soldiers? Asking the crowd as if he needed permission? Come on.
Um, easy. Alexander of Macedonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Did you not say earlier in the thread that the New Testament was written 200-400 years after Jesus's death? (Post 2 if you can't remember). Now you, more correctly date Matthew's gospel at 70 to 110 AD. When did the Sanhedrin meet on the Sabbath? Jesus was executed on a Friday and the Sabath is a Saturday. The Last Supper was on Thursday evening. Are you sure you have studied the New Testament? Perhaps you should look again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
He is not more famous than Jesus among the general population of human beings, although there may be more fans of him on a historical war gaming forum than of Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Here you go again posting conjecture as fact. I can post sites that claim to prove they were written when I said and by actual eye witnesses but again this is conjecture not fact so I wont bother. You still havent answered my question.Quote:
OH please, dont start with fallacy. Matthew is dated to 70 AD at the earliest, and `110 AD at the latest. Most scholars place it at the turn of the century. Dont claim it was written in 50. Mark is the absolute earliest at around 70. THe Gospel of Judas is contemporary with Luke, by the way.
He seems to be educated in all matters but the master of none:laugh4:Quote:
Are you sure you have studied the New Testament? Perhaps you should look again.
Ask any Hindu who he is - you'll be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
This has been a rather amusing thread. It seems someone has a problem dealing with christianity and its influence on the world. Right, wrong, or indifferent on whether Jesus existed as a human being - to deny the impact and influence on the world of the character is to steer one's self away from the concept of history.
As for how Jesus became as well known as he did - we can all thank a certain Roman Emporer, and his using it as a state religion to appease the masses.
There is a whole list of individuals who have influenced the world to some degree. Karl Marx being one such individual. Alexander the Great predates Jesus.
GIve me a break, I'm not an expert by any means except for Islam and Roman history. I was wrong on the dates, I stand corrected. I was going off my initial recollection of bits and pieces from school, but then looked it up. Same thing for the Sanhedrin--I remember the historical criticism, but got the specifics wrong. here is the correct version:
Quote:
The following are some of the Mosaic Laws that according to Christians claims were violated by the Sanhedrin in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6, 7; Le 19:15, 35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or 'following a crowd to do evil' (Ex 23:2, 3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14, 15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).
The Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court was forbidden to sit at night (Ex 18:24) nor could it meet during a festival, as it was the first night of Passover (Num 28:18). Scholars in the area of biblical criticism take these inconsistencies with Jewish practice to indicate that such a trial most likely did not take place.
Jesus brings out the best and worst of people... that's why I believe!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I had scored a screamer yards away :clown:Quote:
As for how Jesus became as well known as he did - we can all thank a certain Roman Emporer, and his using it as a state religion to appease the masses.
I still don't understand why it comes to a point where people are trying to put themselves above each other playing with an average of 2 laugh4 smileys/post and where expressing an idea has been more of a matter of self-integrity rather than an element of a debate.
well the explanation is simple...Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
that book had one hell of a re-write team....they probably thought to themselfs...´what can we write that will make people really be a part of this movement? what will make them WANT to believe?.....I got it! what if our leader can come back to life?´
the whole (supposed) resurrection angle is one hell of a selling point...don´t you think? how are you gonna get a character that is more amazing than that? even if you kill him he gets back up! not even Arnold in his best movies pulled that one off...I guess back then they had better publicists :laugh4:
so you have a charismatic figure.....with a story people want to believe in......and it´s a nice story if you don´t look too hard for the inconsistencies in it...so bam! you have an instantly revered figure..the impact it had on the roman empire probably assured that we´re still talking about it today
I'm going to use the banned answer. He was charismatic, and lucky. He was saying what people wanted to hear at a certain time. And at some levels he was right, so people listened. Throw in the fact that humans like ideals and you get a few people willing to die for a belief. It was not the first or last time that a group of people were willing to preach words that could get them killed.
To say that he will always be the most popular person is likely incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if in two thousand years some people argue about the Gospels of John, Paul, George, and Ringo.
Without a TV some charismatic person will only remain popular among friends.
[offensive intention=0]
Jesus owes it to Rome.
[/offensive intention]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
You'd think that was it, but the entire ressurection thing was wholly plagarized from various other mythic heroes of the region. It even came to a point when early Christians were asking how jesus was any different than Adonis, Hercules, Osiris, etc. The early christian leadership response was something along "well yeah, but this time its true". :idea2:
What's wrong with that answer? The others were fabrications, Jesus was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Also he is leaving out all those who prophesised! his coming. Again that there were others who claimed so before doesnt prove a thing.Quote:
What's wrong with that answer? The others were fabrications, Jesus was not.
I have my serious doubts about those as well. I imagine then you have the same distain for Islam and the Koran as for Christianity and the bible.Quote:
I'm not an expert by any means except for Islam and Roman history.
I do that now lol :laugh4:Quote:
To say that he will always be the most popular person is likely incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if in two thousand years some people argue about the Gospels of John, Paul, George, and Ringo.
But I dont see Christianity dying any time soon. Its still the worlds largest religion and still growing. Its already been here 2000 years. The only major religion I can think of thats older is Judaism thats still practiced.
Fine, you blindly accept it as fact. That's fine. What do you say about all of the laws the Sanhedrin supposedly were happy to break in order to try Jesus?
Islam is actually the fastest growing religion and will soon overtake Christianity. But yes, Islam is pure nonsense too but it was largley appropriated from the CHristian and Jewish bible. That a Christian could claim theirs is any more valid than the Koran is silliness as well. I am just an expert on Islam as its been my job for some 4 years now and Ive taken numerous Islamic studies courses. But yes, I do have a 'disdain' for it :) :daisy:
Christianity has about 2100 million adherents worldwide, while Islam has 1300 million. Islam is currently growing at about 2% per year.
I take that you have proof of this...:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros