Catholic Church get's sued over existence of Christ

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I think it'd be really amusing to apply these same comically high standards applied to all historical documents- anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap.

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?

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.

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?

[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.

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

Oh and the gospels are not that independent really "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!

[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/warriorchall...tors/time.html
I think someone's bias is showing.

[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!

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/warriorchall...tors/time.html
I think someone's bias is showing.

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'

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


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

[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.