# Christ myth theory



## ThickStemz (Feb 26, 2016)

With all the similarities between the jesus story and lots of older religions and mythical figures there have long been those who have drawn those comparisons and said jesus was the myth too.

Becuase mainstream scholors have long held to the story that, son of god or not, there is a man behind the story of jesus. Why?

Academic inertia.

Western civilization descends from a very christian past. In fact, many who are professionals in this field have to sign statements of faith even today. That means their paychecks depend on holding to this traditional story.

With the professionals excluded, it had been left up to amateur historians to make this case. And it has shown.

Enter dr. Richard Carrier

He has peer reviewd books that have passed that process, using accepted methods to draw the conclusion that Jesus never existed.

I'm very impressed with his work.


----------



## Cyrus420 (Mar 7, 2016)

Considering the bible claims the man rose from the grave after being brutally beaten, tortured, and even pierced I would say it's easy to conclude the man never existed given that the book the story comes from is contradictory to our understanding of the world and how it works.

I do not need a historian to tell me Jesus never existed, common sense did that for me.


----------



## GreenLogician (Mar 7, 2016)

The one and only piece of archaeological evidence I've ever encountered for the existence of a man behind the myths, is the controversial Ossuary of James.


----------



## Corso312 (Mar 7, 2016)

I went to catholic grade school n highschool, even @ the tender age of 9 I knew the bible and religion was horseshit.. I had nuns and I used to cracked weekly for asking "what about the dinosaurs?"


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 7, 2016)

GreenLogician said:


> The one and only piece of archaeological evidence I've ever encountered for the existence of a man behind the myths, is the controversial Ossuary of James.


I think you'll find its a forger. It's my understanding that is settled. 

Be that as it may, when Paul refers to James as "brother of the lord" all he is doing is saying he is a christian. Christians references to each other at the time was as brothers of the lord.


----------



## Cyrus420 (Mar 7, 2016)

Corso312 said:


> I went to catholic grade school n highschool, even @ the tender age of 9 I knew the bible and religion was horseshit.. I had nuns and I used to cracked weekly for asking "what about the dinosaurs?"


Did going through the Catholic church have anything to do with this?

I've noticed a trend of those who come from more established churches have a higher chance of turning on said church.


----------



## Corso312 (Mar 7, 2016)

Cyrus420 said:


> Did going through the Catholic church have anything to do with this?
> 
> I've noticed a trend of those who come from more established churches have a higher chance of turning on said church.





Possible.. Hard to say for sure, I was never a believer, even my mom stopped going to church 15 years ago.. The priests fucking little boys like it was a sport was the final straw.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 13, 2016)

Corso312 said:


> Possible.. Hard to say for sure, I was never a believer, even my mom stopped going to church 15 years ago.. The priests fucking little boys like it was a sport was the final straw.


I think that's a bit of an overstatement. 

Sure it was an organizational cancer. It was protected by the hierarchy. But as far as I know there are relatively few victims, made so by a tiny fration of the clergy. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 14, 2016)

Jesus Christ is a title similar to Rabbi, something of an honour or distinction. I don't find that this video digs deep enough, also, it contains the usual snide tone that makes it much less credible right out of the gates. That's my personal opinion, nothing snide or hidden.


----------



## Corso312 (Mar 14, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.
> 
> Sure it was an organizational cancer. It was protected by the hierarchy. But as far as I know there are relatively few victims, made so by a tiny fration of the clergy. Correct me if I'm wrong.




You're wrong, institutionalized child rape world wide; I'd wager less than 1% of the cases ever saw a court of law.


----------



## 757growin (Mar 14, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.
> 
> Sure it was an organizational cancer. It was protected by the hierarchy. But as far as I know there are relatively few victims, made so by a tiny fration of the clergy. Correct me if I'm wrong.


There's been 1000s of victims world wide from these pedo priests


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 15, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> Jesus Christ is a title similar to Rabbi, something of an honour or distinction. I don't find that this video digs deep enough, also, it contains the usual snide tone that makes it much less credible right out of the gates. That's my personal opinion, nothing snide or hidden.


The dude is selling a book. He's not going to tell his whole story. 

Buy it and read it.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 15, 2016)

Corso312 said:


> You're wrong, institutionalized child rape world wide; I'd wager less than 1% of the cases ever saw a court of law.


Out of how many priests?

I'm not trying to take away from the victims. But I don't think a priest is significantly more likely to be a child molester than any other man.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 16, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The dude is selling a book. He's not going to tell his whole story.
> 
> Buy it and read it.


Why support his immature perspective with my cake?


----------



## Captain Plank-Eye (Mar 17, 2016)

People have been denying Jesus since his recorded birth. Actually, this was predicted before he was born. If you think about it, Christ is the only person in the history of the world to have been attacked maliciously over and over again by people who have no knowledge of him or his life on earth. Whether or not you believe it, he did die for your sins. You can accept it or not, it doesnt even make a ripple in the universe. People saw things and wrote them down how they happened and bam thats called history. The reason people fear the idea the bible presents is because it means they need to change, and they worked so hard to get to where theyre at (accepted by others) that to turn their backs on the masses would be to them pagan blasphemy. 

So lets hate what we don't understand because if we do people will accept us? No, read the book with an open mind and then form an educated opinion. Then you'll just be guilty of immoral reasoning, not ignorance. 

If i ganged up with rollitup.org and we all said your grow journal never happened and that your clones were stupid and your plants never got watered by you, would we be right?

Can a plant you grow stand over you with the rest of the canopy and resent you for growing them? Say you never raised them? That they evolved from the soil you put in the pot? No, creation has creator, and creation can never be greater than creator. All we have against God and Jesus is our freedom to reject him, not any evidence he doesnt exist.


----------



## Captain Plank-Eye (Mar 17, 2016)

Also, yes people killed people in the name of God. Shit happens. Can i hate your dad and disrespect him to his face because hiz son(you) pissed me off or did something stupid? No, but let every man be accountable for his OWN actions, and the father is not guilty of the sons crimes. I admit, being a christian is hard, especially when you consider that if i talk about hiphop or pot the right way, you'd worship me but by sharing a bit of my heart you would push away everything i bring to the table for the sake of my faith. Where is YOUR heart? Do you desire mercy? The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

I am christian, i smoke pot, i have a job and a family that i support. Does my faith in God change that? I am calm when the storm comes. Reader, are you?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 17, 2016)

^ balls


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 17, 2016)

Captain Plank-Eye said:


> People have been denying Jesus since his recorded birth. Actually, this was predicted before he was born. If you think about it, Christ is the only person in the history of the world to have been attacked maliciously over and over again by people who have no knowledge of him or his life on earth. Whether or not you believe it, he did die for your sins. You can accept it or not, it doesnt even make a ripple in the universe. People saw things and wrote them down how they happened and bam thats called history. The reason people fear the idea the bible presents is because it means they need to change, and they worked so hard to get to where theyre at (accepted by others) that to turn their backs on the masses would be to them pagan blasphemy.
> 
> So lets hate what we don't understand because if we do people will accept us? No, read the book with an open mind and then form an educated opinion. Then you'll just be guilty of immoral reasoning, not ignorance.
> 
> ...


So it is your contention that the bible or some other book presents us with eye witness accounts of those events?

Who do you think wrote the gospels? Who wrote acts? Who wrote the letters of Paul?

I love at the end you sum it up by saying we have no evidence that compells us to reject god and jesus. What in reality is there is no evidence to suggest he is real, either one of them. Why?

The gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke or John, they're anonymous. We're not sure where or by whom they were written. But it was 100 years or so after christ. Mark was the first. Then Matthew and Luke. And we have fragments dating back to about 270ad, and complete gospels dating back to about 350 ad. The variation in these books is amazing. They're clearly fabrications. The dying and rising god figure was popular at that time. 

There may be a god. Idk. But there is loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up. 

As to his recorded birth? Ha. No. His birth was not recorded. Show me where, if it was.

Nothing about jesus can be found earlier than 70/80 ad when Paul writes his letters and acts. Of the 13 letters of Paul, 7 are forgeries, meaning not written by Paul. 

The thread that unwound Christianity has been pulled. All the pieces are there for you to find.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 17, 2016)

Captain Plank-Eye said:


> Also, yes people killed people in the name of God. Shit happens. Can i hate your dad and disrespect him to his face because hiz son(you) pissed me off or did something stupid? No, but let every man be accountable for his OWN actions, and the father is not guilty of the sons crimes. I admit, being a christian is hard, especially when you consider that if i talk about hiphop or pot the right way, you'd worship me but by sharing a bit of my heart you would push away everything i bring to the table for the sake of my faith. Where is YOUR heart? Do you desire mercy? The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
> 
> I am christian, i smoke pot, i have a job and a family that i support. Does my faith in God change that? I am calm when the storm comes. Reader, are you?


Look man, we're cool. I'm not disrespecting you, I'm disrespecting jesus. 

I'm sure you're a fine dude. And you're not guilty of anything becuase of your faith that I was not also guilty of most of my life. 

I've prayed for years on end for jesus to come into my heart and show me his glory. Never happend. 

Then I was exposed to the counter argument. It makes much more sense. And it would for you too if you could jusr allow yourself to objectively look at it.


----------



## Captain Plank-Eye (Mar 17, 2016)

Well, i would counter that everything worth having takes hard work to create. If you studied to the best of your ability, did the work instead of take others word for work that theyve done, and you conclude that evidence for christ being phony is real to you, im not gonna tell you what to believe.

What i think everyone has against God is that they have had a bad relationship with their worldly father, and they transfer that image or countenance to their father in heaven.

We all have the desire to be respected, loved and understood. Theres that need for someone out there to understand that there is a method to our madness, that we are not just crazy. If believing what you believe fulfills those needs in your heart, soul and mind, keep at it. If its not working for you - or at some point stops working for you, i would be happy to share what i believe. The problem is we all have a hole in our soul that we try to fill. Its a weird void like a black hole thats always calling out to our flesh and we go to the material store to try to fill it. Some go to drugs, some go to sex, some to murder, some to rape, some to $money, but the bottom line is we all do things without thinking and without understanding because it "feels" right.

The story of jesus is mainly to show contrast of god, before jesus all we had were stories of punishment, law and commandments. The purpose of these were to show us that through such abroad spectrum of laws and dont's, that every man has fallen short of the righteousness and glory of god. He says, here is the scope of perfection, you, man, do not fit anywhere in it. The idea is for dad to show son that son needs dad to make it. Now, if you think that in the christian faith, god is a merciless punisher, you are not looking at what father tells son(creation).

God is perfect(if you dont believe in god, simply stop reading, this is a christian point of view). When we die, we immediately are put into the presence of god face to face. We cant see him with eyes, when we die and have a different awareness(ever do acid or dmt?) We will see with sure certainty that there he is requiring an account of how we lived and why we did what we did. Here is where many start to squirm and get sweaty palms, a rapid heartbeat if you will. We all know we are guilty. We dont want to face our fear, eternal death. In order to stand by perfection, you too must be made perfect. Your sins here dont make you perfect, they put shit stains on your white shirt you were born with and by the time all of us die, we look like mud buddies. God says, "while you are alive in this world your eyes cant see me, but damnit I love you!"(talking directly to YOU, reader) so he says heres what i will do, i will come down to their earth that i made them where they live and i will die in their place, since the moment die they are guilty due to sin. I will not sin (god), therefore my death without sin will be a worthy sacrifice to make atonement for the sins they cant help but commit. Therfore, god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever(you included) believes in his name wouce not perish but have everlasting life.

I had to read tons of fuck jesus posts before writing this, so its only fair for someone who loves jesus to give their side of it.

Not everyone is hateful, or has a hardened heart. Many are seeking what to put their faith in, its a real journey every man and gal faces in life. Jesus is the only god that offers eternal life to those who believe in his name. If he comes through for ME on this, i know i will have the greatest reward. Who wouldnt want a pill that would make all of their problems go away and make em not age? Millions are spent on this every year in research. So far we all agree that weed helps us cope with the burdens of life(sin, nice thi gs dont burden you) and god gave us weed.

I have a daughter. I have loved her through all of her worst days. Lying, disobedience, even the nasty things that kids do. I dont love her any less, nor do i think shes a piece of shit. God loves you, and doesnt think you are a piece of shit for what you have done, he just wants you to know him so that he can bless you. Is it hard to say that I, John, have commited adultry, fornication, lust, lies, stealing coveting(wanting what you have), shamed both of my parents, blasphemed gods own name and his sons name to others, and i want to be forgivin for it cuz i feel guilty and dont want to live forever as one who practices those things?

Edit spell check


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 17, 2016)

Your post, even though a ringing endorsement of Christianity, is a good example of why it isn't true. 

It's wish fulfillment. Who wouldn't want eternal life, you say? Who doesn't want a fatherly figure to pat them on the back and say all is well?

Idk how much you know, but christians of the 2nd or 3rd century wouldn't recognize what it has become. There are hundreds of sects, many excommunicating the others. 

And there are many faiths that promise eternal life. Islam does. European paganism did. 

It wasn't until jesus, the meek Nazarene, until the concept of hell was introduced to the abrahamic faith. The jews stole the concept of Satan from the Persians when they were exiled there. And if you are a christian you have to think I'm doomed to hell. 

I'm from the south. I grew up christian. Everyone around me is christian, or claims to be. It didn't happen over night.

What christians often do, and you did it here, is assume that a rejection of Christianity can only happen with some sort of trauma, you indicated it might be with my father. Often they try to attribute it to a bad experience in church. I have a very good relationship with both of my parents and have fond memories of going to church as a child and young adult. 

To say you're a christian there are certian beliefs that go along with it. Like, god created the earth, he made mankind, christ came and died and rose, and many others.

Eventually some people learn things that take away these supporting beliefs. Like the evolutionary history of our species. The evidence being learned about the creation of our universe, the more we learn the less and less likely christianity appears reasonable. Some people can learn this and continue with the cognitive dissonance. I could not.

The only thing left is the feeling some report when they pray to jesus. They feel him in their heart. But this can be said of all faiths throughout the world. Either they are all true or none of them are.


----------



## Captain Plank-Eye (Mar 17, 2016)

Well maybe i am deceived. If we are next to eachother in line to be judged after this life, lets talk about it. I am of a sect of christianity by the way, so maybe my view is biased. I am of the section of people who read the bible and pray to God to reveal truth to me in a world flooded with lies. Before, i was a drug addict and had many other problems, Christ has set me free! I brainwashed myseld i guess.

Seriously though, im not gonna argue with you, the bible doesnt say christians have to be right on internet forums and nothing tastes good when its crammed into your mouth.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Mar 17, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Your post, even though a ringing endorsement of Christianity, is a good example of why it isn't true.
> 
> It's wish fulfillment. Who wouldn't want eternal life, you say? Who doesn't want a fatherly figure to pat them on the back and say all is well?
> 
> ...


I like you.
As a fellow highly educated EX Christian, I think you represented us well.
and to be honest, as a Christian, he didn't seem like the rest.
So I actually like you both.
The bible was written by MAN, not god.
oftentimes that's the biggest thing overlooked, and not to mention it's been translated hundreds of times, as a person that speaks multiple languages, translation is a tricky endeavor to get accurately...
especially considering most of the dialects aren't even used anymore.
theres a LOT of killing in the name of "god"
lots of rape, systematic killings of entire cities/villages..
I prefer to believe in science.
For the record I went to church 3-4 times a week until I was around 10.
and my father and I get along fine.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 17, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> I like you.
> As a fellow highly educated EX Christian, I think you represented us well.
> and to be honest, as a Christian, he didn't seem like the rest.
> So I actually like you both.
> ...


The most loud mouth athiests are often the most ignorant ones. I'm not hostile to christianity. The way it's passed off these days is a lovely story, divorced entirely from its actual history. 

That said if someone wants to believe it's no matter to me. Just don't try to get it taught in school or incorporated into our laws. 

From the perspective of a christian my mistake was I card about if it was true or not. Most christians don't seem to care if it's true. I watch their apologists get up and lie and distort the facts and words of others. And the blinded by faith followers don't see it. But once you crack that shell of objectivity, it's a one way street to ex-christian.


----------



## abalonehx (Mar 17, 2016)

The creator of all ...would have to be a fucking madman...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 17, 2016)

A question for some of you - when you read the word church, do you picture a physical building?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 17, 2016)

It has many meanings.... church that is.

Church can be a physical building. 

But I think in its "purest" sense the church is the people who follow christ.

The catholics might say its one man, or the priesthood.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 18, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> It has many meanings.... church that is.
> 
> Church can be a physical building.
> 
> ...


The followers comprise a church, in a sense, yes. But with a bazillion denominations that gets fuzzy, "who's got the _'real'_ church?" blah blah.

A little further, can you picture it as immaterial? How about as describing a function?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 18, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> The followers comprise a church, in a sense, yes. But with a bazillion denominations that gets fuzzy, "who's got the _'real'_ church?" blah blah.
> 
> A little further, can you picture it as immaterial? How about as describing a function?


Perhaps it's a field where all the good sheep can graze. It says a lot about a religion who calls it's adherents a "flock" does it not?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 18, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Perhaps it's a field where all the good sheep can graze. It says a lot about a religion who calls it's adherents a "flock" does it not?


Well, if that's your perspective, ain't no wool off of my back 

So, you claim that objectivity makes for an ex-xian, but do not understand what is behind an object?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 18, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> Well, if that's your perspective, ain't no wool off of my back
> 
> So, you claim that objectivity makes for an ex-xian, but do not understand what is behind an object?


I don't understand the grammar of your question. What are you trying to ask me?


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Mar 18, 2016)

I do a little writing, and I have had a story rattling around in my head for a while. I won't tell the whole story here, because I just might finish the book one day. 

It is about this young Jewish girl named Mary who is of good, but poor family. Mary is engaged to Joseph, an older man with his own roofing business. But the never ending supply of bad roofs was keeping Joseph away, and she was bored. The summer sun was warm and there was a handsome young Roman soldier stationed nearby in a small village who came to the cool spring on her father's farm each day. Mary and the soldier started doing what young folks have done for ever. As summer changed into fall, Mary realized she was in the family way.

What happens next is the stuff legends are made of. Legends in the advertising and PR trades anyway. Mary knew Joseph was a God fearing man, so she tells him God knocked her up. Joseph believed it, and told anyone who would listen. In June the kid came, and as he grew up, Joseph told him everyday of his life he was the son of God. Who can blame the youngun for believing his Daddy?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 18, 2016)

I always ask folks what they think is more likely... that a virgin should conceive, or that a young Jewish bitch could tell a lie?

The real irony comes in that I've heard it said (since I don't speak greek) that the virgin Mary myth comes from a Greek mistranslation. I think the word was 'alma' which simply means young woman. It was translated as virgin. 

Most christians don't know the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception.


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Mar 18, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I always ask folks what they think is more likely... that a virgin should conceive, or that a young Jewish bitch could tell a lie?
> 
> The real irony comes in that I've heard it said (since I don't speak greek) that the virgin Mary myth comes from a Greek mistranslation. I think the word was 'alma' which simply means young woman. It was translated as virgin.
> 
> Most christians don't know the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception.


I have spent some very enjoyable time reading and thinking about the different religions of the world, and how alike all the stories are. I was raised in an Assembly of God church, where the folks speak in tongues and all that shit. I had me enough of that when I was 13, but I didn't really grasp the truth of it until my first year of college. There was a line in a social studies textbook that said, "Man creates Gods in his own image." That made me cool with religion. It is needed by some folks and adds value to their lives. 

In my younger days I dabbled in the Creek Indian religion a little. But like all groups of people, there is always an asshole or two who just make it easier to say a prayer to the Creator by your own damn self. I still say a prayer to The Grandfathers whenever I'm starting a project, like a garden. I use it as a way to concentrate my mind on what outcome I'm wanting, and thinking about all the steps needed to reach that outcome. I face the east {rising sun} and ask them to bless the union of shovel and earth.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 18, 2016)

Larry {the} Gardener said:


> I have spent some very enjoyable time reading and thinking about the different religions of the world, and how alike all the stories are. I was raised in an Assembly of God church, where the folks speak in tongues and all that shit. I had me enough of that when I was 13, but I didn't really grasp the truth of it until my first year of college. There was a line in a social studies textbook that said, "Man creates Gods in his own image." That made me cool with religion. It is needed by some folks and adds value to their lives.
> 
> In my younger days I dabbled in the Creek Indian religion a little. But like all groups of people, there is always an asshole or two who just make it easier to say a prayer to the Creator by your own damn self. I still say a prayer to The Grandfathers whenever I'm starting a project, like a garden. I use it as a way to concentrate my mind on what outcome I'm wanting, and thinking about all the steps needed to reach that outcome. I face the east {rising sun} and ask them to bless the union of shovel and earth.


It's interesting what you say. I've heard neurological experts talk about the brain scans of people when when they're thinking about certian things. 

From what I remember of them, and I can not provide a source but you can probably find it if you look, the brain lights up in certain areas when people try to think about things from another's perspective. Like "what would a man from England think about xyz." 

When people think about their own perspective another area of the brain lights up. 

So it seems that we have the ability in a normal healthy brain to look at the word from the perspective of others.

When, however, a person thinks of something and tries to see it from the perspective of their own god, the same region of the brain lights up that they use when it's their own perspective they're trying to use.

So it explains why people's god usually hates the same people that the society who's god that is hates.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 18, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I don't understand the grammar of your question. What are you trying to ask me?


What is behind an object? What does an object represent? " And the blinded by faith followers don't see it. But once you crack that shell of objectivity, it's a one way street to ex-christian."


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> What is behind an object? What does an object represent? " And the blinded by faith followers don't see it. But once you crack that shell of objectivity, it's a one way street to ex-christian."


I wish you would just ask me plainly what you want to ask me becuase I'm just guessing if I were to offer you any sort of answer now.

But hazard that guess I shall, because why not?

If you want to know objectively what is wrong with a religion you can't figure it out by asking those who believe in it. Christians have been indoctrinated to bridge those gaps of reason. Muslims have been as well. Hindus have, all followers of all religions have bridged the gaps of reason in their own religions. 

But if you want to know why christianity doesn't make sense, ask a muslim. If you want to know what's wrong with islam, ask a jew. Etcetera....

Christianity requires a set of assumptions. You start with Judism, and then you have god coming down to make a "new covenant."

In this new covenant god comes down as himself to inhabit a human body to die to serve as a sacrafice to wash away the sins of mankind, if they but believe in him. 

Why doesn't this make sense? 

The phenomenon of dying and rising gods were common in late antiquity. Most cultures had one. Zalmoxis, Romulus, Inanna, Adonis, and Osiris all predate christ. They share similarities. There are many differences. Inanna was actually crucified and raised after 3 days when her disciples brought her the bread and water of life. 

Christianity looks an aweful lot like what a Jewish culture might adopt the dying and rising motiffe that was commonplace at the empire at that time. 

We have Philo of Alexandria referring to Jesus prior to anyone else, except he mentions him as an angel. God's celestial high priest. The agent of creation. 

What we don't know is how jesus went from that to what we know today. After 2000 years of christians controlling libraries and in control of the information, it would be easy to snuff out the history that contradicted their later stories that we now. 

This might explain how there is roughly an 80 year gap in writings. Nothing survives from about the period 10bc to 70ad when we first see the letters of Paul. These letters predate the gospels by some decades. They have a much different tone too. Note how they never really truly mentioned jesus as a living breathing walking human being. Just a ghostly type angelic type. Within 30 years we have the gospels.

With all we know it's more likely to assume that they just made all this up, instead of miracles actually happening.

Why? Well its becuase the bible. Look at its notion of god. The christian god is a continuation of the old Jewish god. The god who said have no other gods before me. Almost an admission there are other gods. Christians claim miracles support truth for their god. But in Egypt Moses and Aaron are said to have fueded with pharaohs priests who also did miracles in their gods name. So you see this is hardly a god inspired story arch. It's all ignorance.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I wish you would just ask me plainly what you want to ask me becuase I'm just guessing if I were to offer you any sort of answer now.
> 
> But hazard that guess I shall, because why not?
> 
> ...


There's some stuff you've written that we can all agree on, like, all of the easy questions f.e.. There are other things that I feel are lacking depth of research. You point further back and say that those avatar types were all the same, like a popular story to tell those that needed comfort. There's a bigger picture around all of that, and perspective is key to seeing it. They _wrote_ about the sun, and _spoke_ of methods to see what was behind it. *why ask plainly when the issue is not plain at all.

Just curious, do you think science would be were it is without the efforts of some of those who were gullible enough to buy the stories? This myth is so useless that a Jesuit priest first postulated the big bang, and we've all been ignorant enough to believe him - until now i guess *shrugs*


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 19, 2016)

Cyrus420 said:


> Considering the bible claims the man rose from the grave after being brutally beaten, tortured, and even pierced I would say it's easy to conclude the man never existed given that the book the story comes from is contradictory to our understanding of the world and how it works.
> 
> I do not need a historian to tell me Jesus never existed, common sense did that for me.


There's ample evidence Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is a matter of opinion.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> There's ample evidence Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is a matter of opinion.


That just isn't true. The Bible is the only place where jesus is mentioned. There are zero contemporary writings that refer to christ.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> There's some stuff you've written that we can all agree on, like, all of the easy questions f.e.. There are other things that I feel are lacking depth of research. You point further back and say that those avatar types were all the same, like a popular story to tell those that needed comfort. There's a bigger picture around all of that, and perspective is key to seeing it. They _wrote_ about the sun, and _spoke_ of methods to see what was behind it. *why ask plainly when the issue is not plain at all.
> 
> Just curious, do you think science would be were it is without the efforts of some of those who were gullible enough to buy the stories? This myth is so useless that a Jesuit priest first postulated the big bang, and we've all been ignorant enough to believe him - until now i guess *shrugs*


The problem is there is only so far we can go with research. And I'm not a researcher. I don't speak greek or aramaic or anything. Im a lay man. But I've read a lot on the topic of people who do research it, and both sides, at that. 

It's not a clear cut proposition. The reason I posted Mr carriers work is that it's the first myth proponent who actually passed the sniff test. I'm sure you've heard of ceases messiah? That's bullshit. 

Would science be where if is without Christianity? Why don't you ask Gellaleo.

Look, undoubtedly some early scientists were christians. And many still are. What of it? 

The important thing you left out about your Jesuit who postulated the big bang was that the pope offered to make it dogma for him. He has to tell the pope that it would be missing the point.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The problem is there is only so far we can go with research. And I'm not a researcher. I don't speak greek or aramaic or anything. Im a lay man. But I've read a lot on the topic of people who do research it, and both sides, at that.
> 
> It's not a clear cut proposition. The reason I posted Mr carriers work is that it's the first myth proponent who actually passed the sniff test. I'm sure you've heard of ceases messiah? That's bullshit.
> 
> ...


Glad to hear you know of Lemaître. As for the pope, I can ask about his reasons 

"What of it?" What if his faith was a part of what brought him to that understanding? Where would we be if he hadn't? There are way too many variables to be able to say that an objective view cuts out that particular enterprise of belief.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> Glad to hear you know of Lemaître. As for the pope, I can ask about his reasons
> 
> "What of it?" What if his faith was a part of what brought him to that understanding? Where would we be if he hadn't? There are way too many variables to be able to say that an objective view cuts out that particular enterprise of belief.


We would be in the exact same place without him.

I think the better question is what did his faith have to do with his scientific discoveries? Its doubtful it had much to do at all with it.

His faith couldn't have brought him to that understanding. His intelligence did and his willingness to look at the evidence and read it. It can only be a post hoc explanation to go from that into saying "ah, this is what it means in Genesis 1 when god said let there be light and there was light."

If it naturally flowed from his faith Thomas Aquinas or Augustine would have figured it out.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> That just isn't true. The Bible is the only place where jesus is mentioned. There are zero contemporary writings that refer to christ.


The Bible is a collection of contemporary writings by different authors from different places. Jesus is alive and resides down the street from me. Turns out he wasn't a Jew after all, he's Hispanic.


----------



## Cyrus420 (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> There's ample evidence Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is a matter of opinion.


Please provide us with said evidence.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> The Bible is a collection of contemporary writings by different authors from different places. Jesus is alive and resides down the street from me. Turns out he wasn't a Jew after all, he's Hispanic.


Everything in the bible was written hundreds of years before, or 35/40 to 120 years after jesus. 

Nothing exits that mentions jesus that is contemporary to jesus.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Everything in the bible was written hundreds of years before, or 35/40 to 120 years after jesus.
> 
> Nothing exits that mentions jesus that is contemporary to jesus.


Weren't Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. contemporaries of Jesus?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Weren't Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. contemporaries of Jesus?


Supposedly... 

But... mark and Luke, while they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels. They're anonymous. They had to call them something so they attributed those names to them. 

Paul never met jesus. Remember his story was that he was a persecutor of christians and had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Important to mention he never mentions jesus as a living breathing human walking around. 

Another thing about Peter and the others. They were people who should have been illiterate. Fishermen. The hook of Peter is widely regarded to be a forgery. Books rather. At most one may be authentic. But still, the new testiment is written by a highly skilled writer. Not a fisherman. No matter how much he learned later in life, no book in the new testiment could have been written by someone who spent most of their life illiterate. 

Plenty of sources on this.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 19, 2016)

You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> We would be in the exact same place without him.
> 
> I think the better question is what did his faith have to do with his scientific discoveries? Its doubtful it had much to do at all with it.
> 
> ...


There's more of a progression to it than what your last point assumes. We would not be where we are without all of the discoveries that were made. There's an amalgam, again, based on perspective. His "faith" was a part of his entire worldview, a worldview from which his discoveries were made possible.

Ever heard of Ben Pandira?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> There's more of a progression to it than what your last point assumes. We would not be where we are without all of the discoveries that were made. There's an amalgam, again, based on perspective. His "faith" was a part of his entire worldview, a worldview from which his discoveries were made possible.
> 
> Ever heard of Ben Pandira?


The name sounds familiar but doesn't bring anything up. I've not searched on Google but they're is a chance I've heard of and do know of him. Just can't recall the name.

Ones world view is irrelevant. The world view of a christian an atheist a muslim and a Hindu are a lot different.

But they can cooperate and be on the same page on a research team. As long as one doesn't take the notion that they're not allowed to learn anything contradictory to their faith then it will be separate in their mind.

Reminds me of how the Germans in the 1930s thought there was "Jewish physics and Aryan physics."


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.


The author of the book of Matthew could well have been named Matthew, but we know it was not the Matthew that followed jesus. That's what I meant. 

We know that becuase it was written too far after. Jesus supposedly died in 30 ish ad. The earliest fragment we have surviving of any of the gospels is from close to 200 years after that. 

The books are far far too late to be written by a contemporary of jesus. 

There is zero evidence of his life from that time. None. 

But we're perfectly aware and have independent verification of much less famous prophetic figures.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The name sounds familiar but doesn't bring anything up. I've not searched on Google but they're is a chance I've heard of and do know of him. Just can't recall the name.
> 
> Ones world view is irrelevant. The world view of a christian an atheist a muslim and a Hindu are a lot different.
> 
> ...


Now hold on a minute tharrrr, Babalouie, one's worldview is irrelevant? Please explain


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.


The methodology of history is tried and true. When it's turned onto the bible this is what is found. 

Here is a blog on the anonymity of the gospels by one of the world's leading expert on the bible. He went to Billy Graham's scool. Grew up in the faith. 

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 19, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> Now hold on a minute tharrrr, Babalouie, one's worldview is irrelevant? Please explain


My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results. 

Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results.
> 
> Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.


But there's the rub, you cannot alter your conscience such as to remove all of your accumulated noise, elsewise you'd be incapable of performing any scientific work. Anyway, that's semantics. You can do your best to remove the bias, but it is a part of everything you do, why else have peer review? It seems to me a filter to get to an elegant solution. You know, that's great for scientific work, but we don't science more than we live our lives, and living is psychological.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 19, 2016)

I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "I can't wait to retire so I can spend the rest of my science rocking on the porch."


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> But there's the rub, you cannot alter your conscience such as to remove all of your accumulated noise, elsewise you'd be incapable of performing any scientific work. Anyway, that's semantics. You can do your best to remove the bias, but it is a part of everything you do, why else have peer review? It seems to me a filter to get to an elegant solution. You know, that's great for scientific work, but we don't science more than we live our lives, and living is psychological.


I can see your point, I just don't see what it has to do with science. Yes different perspectives can and do lead to looking at things differently. 

And since no one likes to have their work torn apart, those scientists make damn sure they can eliminate their prejudices from influencing their results. 

You can see the distinction when looking at a man like Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, maybe former director of, idk... but anyway, he does world class work and is a deeply believing Christian. 

Compare to him someone like Kent Hovind, Dr. DINO. LOL. Hovind has his final answer in mind and simply finds and alters data to fit what he wants, or he ignores it. 

Collins is a real scientist and I've seen those like him talk about this. They check their faith at the door when they start their work. These are highly disciplined minds and they're capable of doing this Mon through Fri and believing a few Latin words turns a cracker into jesus on Sunday. 

Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria."


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The author of the book of Matthew could well have been named Matthew, but we know it was not the Matthew that followed jesus. That's what I meant.
> 
> We know that becuase it was written too far after. Jesus supposedly died in 30 ish ad. The earliest fragment we have surviving of any of the gospels is from close to 200 years after that.
> 
> ...


Actually, "zero evidence" is contrary to everything you've cited. You have spoken throughout this thread of the Bible, which is evidence of his existence. The fact that literally several billion, possibly even a hundred billion, or even more, believe he existed, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims, is quite a massive endorsement. To claim he was not a deity is quite reasonable, to claim he never even existed is putting your own religious beliefs above logic.The very "crime" you accuse the devout of.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I can see your point, I just don't see what it has to do with science. Yes different perspectives can and do lead to looking at things differently.
> 
> And since no one likes to have their work torn apart, those scientists make damn sure they can eliminate their prejudices from influencing their results.
> 
> ...


I work with scientists on a professional basis. My experience is that scientist often aren't even aware of their prejudices. I have seen many experiments fail because of wrong assumptions, or assuming some vender knew the equipment they sold better than the people who actually use the equipment. Basically, they assume a degree makes one smarter than one without a degree. After 7 years of watching the same device fail at the same point, I modified the device without permission and increased the strength of the device three-fold. The scientist assumed it was "accidental", because he could not admit that a layman could do what hundreds engineers could not. I should apply for a patent.
"Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria" Wrong. Faith is often a rudimentary way to explain things we don't understand. The "Big Bang" theory is as close to creationism as one can get.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results.
> 
> Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.


No, they don't. Your personal beliefs absolutely influence your perceptions. Early man saw an eclipse and saw the world ending, modern man sees an eclipse and sees the moon passing in front of the sun.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The methodology of history is tried and true. When it's turned onto the bible this is what is found.
> 
> Here is a blog on the anonymity of the gospels by one of the world's leading expert on the bible. He went to Billy Graham's scool. Grew up in the faith.
> 
> http://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/


Your citation counters your claims:
"Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
Read the first sentence.
On a side note, this is an example of your beliefs altering your perceptions


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> No, they don't. Your personal beliefs absolutely influence your perceptions. Early man saw an eclipse and saw the world ending, modern man sees an eclipse and sees the moon passing in front of the sun.


No they saw the exact same thing. They eyes witnessed identical spectacles. 

Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better. 



Red1966 said:


> Your citation counters your claims:
> "Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
> Read the first sentence.


Look it was a popular thing to do at the time, forge a document. My understanding of what they found at Nag Hamadi, one of the largest discoveris of ancient books ever, was the fabrication of one of the books. 

If 1 Peter is real we know 2 Peter to be a forgery. We just do. Don't be mad at me. 

Your Sunday school teacher spins a cute little story of mark and Matthew writing this stuff down but it just didn't happen that way.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> I work with scientists on a professional basis. My experience is that scientist often aren't even aware of their prejudices. I have seen many experiments fail because of wrong assumptions, or assuming some vender knew the equipment they sold better than the people who actually use the equipment. Basically, they assume a degree makes one smarter than one without a degree. After 7 years of watching the same device fail at the same point, I modified the device without permission and increased the strength of the device three-fold. The scientist assumed it was "accidental", because he could not admit that a layman could do what hundreds engineers could not. I should apply for a patent.
> "Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria" Wrong. Faith is often a rudimentary way to explain things we don't understand. The "Big Bang" theory is as close to creationism as one can get.


I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time. 

The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind. 

The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> No they saw the exact same thing. They eyes witnessed identical spectacles.
> 
> Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better.
> 
> ...


"Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better" Exactly my point. Their beliefs caused them to see the same event differently.
"If 1 Peter is real........." Conceding my point while trying to refute it.
"Your Sunday school teacher" I haven't been to church in over 50 years. An example of your belief causing you to see something that isn't there.


ThickStemz said:


> I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time.
> 
> The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind.
> 
> The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.


I doubt anything thought to have happened 400 billion years ago is testable. The Bible clearly describes God. "God this...God that..." Perhaps you miss-worded that statement?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time.
> 
> The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind.
> 
> The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.


One thing I can say is that I am not out to make a case for Christianity. It can do that on its own if it so chooses. One of the reasons that I feel that I was created was because two people created me. K, cool, got that part down. I've even made someone, too! (fun, buddy, really fun  )

Anywho, I cannot take it far back enough to see anyone who wasn't made in that way, it becomes impossible. I'm not filling in a gap by assuming a fractal nature in that process, I am admitting my inability as a human being to see beyond it. From there, it becomes a matter of choice, and it is not based on some radical faith. Reason got me there, I don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 20, 2016)

I don't mean to throw a wrench into the works, but, here we are talking about people. Inevitably, we are placing them in some local that best fits the era. Now, if you consider that places are states, and states are also states of being, of consciousness, then what does that make those people? They are part and parcel with a state of consciousness. To search for them on the ground, so to speak, is somewhat futile. They may have existed as personages in history, but they, as do all things, represent something non-tanbgile.

(2 beers and some GDK, btw  )


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> "Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better" Exactly my point. Their beliefs caused them to see the same event differently.
> "If 1 Peter is real........." Conceding my point while trying to refute it.
> "Your Sunday school teacher" I haven't been to church in over 50 years. An example of your belief causing you to see something that isn't there.
> 
> I doubt anything thought to have happened 400 billion years ago is testable. The Bible clearly describes God. "God this...God that..." Perhaps you miss-worded that statement?


Gravitational waves were predicted. We just discovered them. 

It's testable becuase looking into space is looking back into time. 

The cosmic background noise is the afterglow. It's all next level stuff that someone's I feel I might fleetingly understand. But most of the time I dont. But when I read the words of Krause and others I understand their case. It's a good one.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Gravitational waves were predicted. We just discovered them.
> 
> It's testable becuase looking into space is looking back into time.
> 
> The cosmic background noise is the afterglow. It's all next level stuff that someone's I feel I might fleetingly understand. But most of the time I dont. But when I read the words of Krause and others I understand their case. It's a good one.


Except we haven't the ability to see that far, so not testable with current technology. Any case is a good one if you want to believe it. Once again, belief alters perception .


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Except we haven't the ability to see that far, so not testable with current technology. Any case is a good one if you want to believe it. Once again, belief alters perception .


We actually can see that far.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> We actually can see that far.


Nope, not yet. Show me an actual photograph of the big bang if we have that ability. We can only see back a few million years at present. The universe is estimated at 450 billion years old.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> With all the similarities between the jesus story and lots of older religions and mythical figures there have long been those who have drawn those comparisons and said jesus was the myth too.
> 
> Becuase mainstream scholors have long held to the story that, son of god or not, there is a man behind the story of jesus. Why?


Historical analysis.




ThickStemz said:


> Western civilization descends from a very christian past. In fact, many who are professionals in this field have to sign statements of faith even today. That means their paychecks depend on holding to this traditional story.
> 
> With the professionals excluded, it had been left up to amateur historians to make this case. And it has shown.
> 
> Enter dr. Richard Carrier


So,we are to exclude all other professionals,because of a perceived agenda,but allow Carrier's work? And you believe Carrier doesn't have an agenda?


ThickStemz said:


> He has peer reviewd books that have passed that process, using accepted methods to draw the conclusion that Jesus never existed.
> 
> I'm very impressed with his work.


His "accepted methods"(Bayesian analysis) is mathematical probabilities.Still requiring subjective input.
Carrier begins with the presupposition that Jesus never existed.In my opinion,Carrier's conclusion is no less tainted than the academic standard that he opposes.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 20, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I think you'll find its a forger. It's my understanding that is settled.
> 
> Be that as it may, when Paul refers to James as "brother of the lord" all he is doing is saying he is a christian. Christians references to each other at the time was as brothers of the lord.


James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Nope, not yet. Show me an actual photograph of the big bang if we have that ability. We can only see back a few million years at present. The universe is estimated at 450 billion years old.


It isn't in the visible light spectrum. 

It's in infrared ultraviolet and other wavelengths. 

You'd know that if you cared to look into it.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 20, 2016)

dashcues said:


> James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
> It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.


It really is unknowable. I've heard arguments from both sides and it's still not something we can be absolutely sure about. 

I'll just add this. There is a long tradition of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. So was James the result of god impregnation Mary also? 

Furthermore, isn't it quite pathetic that the best evidence that Jesus was actually a living breathing human being that actually existed so weak as to come down to this one line? He used "the" instead of "a"... 

The gospels depict jesus as a fairly famous and well known man. They speak of large crowds and miraculous events. None of them are recorded elsewhere and they are the kinds of things people who were writing back then would have written about. But nothing survives. 

To the extent jesus was a living man, he was nothing like what the gospels describe.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> It really is unknowable. I've heard arguments from both sides and it's still not something we can be absolutely sure about.


"knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.


ThickStemz said:


> I'll just add this. There is a long tradition of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. So was James the result of god impregnation Mary also?


I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her _until _she bore Jesus.
I'll let the Catholics (and others alike) defend Mary's perpetual virginity.My interests are with the historical aspects.


ThickStemz said:


> Furthermore, isn't it quite pathetic that the best evidence that Jesus was actually a living breathing human being that actually existed so weak as to come down to this one line? He used "the" instead of "a"...


Who says it's "the best evidence"? Not I.
Dig long enough and hard enough and you'll find that it's not just one piece of evidence that places Jesus within history.It's the most logical explanation to the type of (internal evidence) and amount of (historical references) evidence that we do have.
When added together,the case of historicity becomes likely.Not "knowable",and certainly not "absolute",but again,history doesn't work that way.


ThickStemz said:


> The gospels depict jesus as a fairly famous and well known man. They speak of large crowds and miraculous events. None of them are recorded elsewhere and they are the kinds of things people who were writing back then would have written about. But nothing survives.
> 
> To the extent jesus was a living man, he was nothing like what the gospels describe.


Jesus preached to the poor,downtrodden,and illiterate of backwater Judea in the 1st century.Educated writers would have been scarce and papyrus expensive.
What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.

It's a wondrous tale(though not without controversy).The story of a pious Jew who healed the sick,fed the hungry,and preached against the corruption of his day.Falsely accused of sedition.Scourged,ridiculed,and crucified for his practices.All the while,forgiving his executioners for their actions.
His tale was of such profound influence that it set a chain of events into motion that we see reflected in society still today.
If the story ended there it would be no less fascinating.But it was just beginning.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 21, 2016)

The perpetual virginity is referencing the womb that is untouched by man, the one that gives birth to stars. (Queen of "Heaven")


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

dashcues said:


> "knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.
> 
> I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
> What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her _until _she bore Jesus.
> ...


As I've always understood the myth theory it was that Jesus either didn't exist, or the person who did had stories told about him that evolved into what we know now are so unlike those stories that they are myth. 

We've seen these myths developed in less time than the information gap that exists with christian writings. The cargo cults of the south pacific developed messianic figures out of whole cloth in 20 years time.

It's my understanding that the earliest christians were a Jewish sect that no longer exists and none of their writings survive. 

The jesus story is myth. It's possible they're inspired by a real man or not.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> It isn't in the visible light spectrum.
> 
> It's in infrared ultraviolet and other wavelengths.
> 
> You'd know that if you cared to look into it.


Show me the infrared photograph then. All cameras produce photographs.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Actually, "zero evidence" is contrary to everything you've cited. You have spoken throughout this thread of the Bible, which is evidence of his existence.


OMFG


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 21, 2016)

UncleBuck said:


> OMFG


S'up motherbucker


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Show me the infrared photograph then. All cameras produce photographs.


I'm no expert, and I don't mean to be insulting or condescending to you, but you've got some catching up to do, I think, before we can even have this discussion.

Start here: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/235-Distant-Galaxies-and-Origins-of-the-Universe


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 21, 2016)

eye exaggerate said:


> S'up motherbucker


longing for pinworm. you're pretty good though. welcome back!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 21, 2016)

UncleBuck said:


> longing for pinworm. you're pretty good though. welcome back!


Thanks lol


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I'm no expert, and I don't mean to be insulting or condescending to you, but you've got some catching up to do, I think, before we can even have this discussion.
> 
> Start here: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/235-Distant-Galaxies-and-Origins-of-the-Universe


So, still no photograph? Your link says 13 billion years, not 450. Also, a fully formed galaxy, meaning it is several billion years old. You're right tho. This conversation is pointless. I shown you multiple examples of errors you have made, and you just claim I have some catching up to do. You can't admit to ever being wrong, all those other billions of people are mistaken.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

dashcues said:


> What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
> It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
> The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
> Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
> Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.


Doesn't that tell you all we need to know? We know how woefully unreliable oral transmission of data is. We now know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Yet we're somehow supposed to believe that the story of Jesus was transmitted Orally from 30ad until after 100ad orally with little change?

Its more than enough time for a complete fabrication. Look into the cargo cults. Its easy enough to find. Note how they changed in the timespan of a human life. What changes they took, there is logic behind them.

Acts seems to suggest early Christians were having revelations commonly, thus adding to the story. One can see how this might get out of hand. Early cargo cult people were doing the same. Everyone could go into a trance and say they had a revelation. This "situation" was stabilized when the cargo cult figures started saying there was a messianic figure who came and would return. Sound familiar?

This stopped the rampant addition to the story of revelation of members to the story.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> So, still no photograph? Your link says 13 billion years, not 450. Also, a fully formed galaxy, meaning it is several billion years old. You're right tho. This conversation is pointless. I shown you multiple examples of errors you have made, and you just claim I have some catching up to do. You can't admit to ever being wrong, all those other billions of people are mistaken.


I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?

An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?
> 
> An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.


even red makes you look stupid, and he thinks that the bible is the evidence of the claim, rather than the claim itself.

this is hilarious and sad.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?
> 
> An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.


450 billion. You don't need to "read" a photograph. Did you need special training to look at the photograph in the link you posted? That was an infrared photograph. If they are so easy to find, why are you unable to find one? I want you to post one because you're a little know-it-all who needs a little comeuppance when you find it doesn't exist.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> 450 billion. You don't need to "read" a photograph. Did you need special training to look at the photograph in the link you posted? That was an infrared photograph. If they are so easy to find, why are you unable to find one? I want you to post one because you're a little know-it-all who needs a little comeuppance when you find it doesn't exist.


No one, no one ever anywhere that I know of, has ever held the universe to be 450 billion years old. I said "read the photograph" because a normal light photograph you just look at and can tell what it is. Infrared photograph isn't so clear. One has to know what it means to be able to understand it.

I would like to point out that in the same post, with just one sentence between them that you say "that was an infrared photograph" and then say "it [infrared photography] doesn't exist."

And you say I'm arrogant and cannot admit when I'm wrong?

Obviously we cannot see infrared light, we have converted the infrared spectrums to visual light represent them that way.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

By the way Red, I've continually said through this thread that I'm not an expert, where I think I know, where I'm not sure, where I don't think its possible to know.

I don't know how anyone reading this can honestly say I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.

Ill tell you what is arrogant, claiming to know more about God. Claiming that the bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge. It is the antithesis of such things.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.


lol.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> No one, no one ever anywhere that I know of, has ever held the universe to be 450 billion years old. I said "read the photograph" because a normal light photograph you just look at and can tell what it is. Infrared photograph isn't so clear. One has to know what it means to be able to understand it.
> 
> I would like to point out that in the same post, with just one sentence between them that you say "that was an infrared photograph" and then say "it [infrared photography] doesn't exist."
> 
> ...


I've seen plenty of infrared photography and had no trouble knowing what it was. Stars, gunfire, people, all clearly and easily recognizable. I didn't say infrared photography doesn't exist. I said the photo of what you claimed existed, didn't exist. You're editing my words. That's dishonest. You are arrogant and can't admit you're wrong. Now you have stooped to lying because you can't admit you're wrong.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 21, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> By the way Red, I've continually said through this thread that I'm not an expert, where I think I know, where I'm not sure, where I don't think its possible to know.
> 
> I don't know how anyone reading this can honestly say I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.
> 
> Ill tell you what is arrogant, claiming to know more about God. Claiming that the bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge. It is the antithesis of such things.


I didn't say you were a prick. I didn't claim to know more about God, hell the topic was Jesus, a man, not God. I did not say the Bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge, I said the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. Which YOU proved with your own citation. But I will say now, you are an arrogant little prick, and a liar, too.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> I've seen plenty of infrared photography and had no trouble knowing what it was. Stars, gunfire, people, all clearly and easily recognizable. I didn't say infrared photography doesn't exist. I said the photo of what you claimed existed, didn't exist. You're editing my words. That's dishonest. You are arrogant and can't admit you're wrong. Now you have stooped to lying because you can't admit you're wrong.


No I just misunderstood you, or you didn't express your thoughts well. 

We can measure how far the galaxies are away. I can't explain it to you, I heard it explained and I understood it. Something to do with measuring the angle of observation to that galaxy 6 months apart while earth is on opposite sides of the sun. 

Now, we can do that with every galaxy out there visible and we have ourselves a fairly accurate map of the universe. 

We can see the way each of those galaxies is traveling, a rough idea of their speed and acceleration, and from there it's just physics. They're all flying away from a focul point apparently. 

That is as clear as I can articulate it.

The picture itself isn't of the big bang. But for you to demand that is absurd. Particularly as a creationist. And a christian. Where is the video of the lifeless body of Jesus asending into heaven? Where is the picture of god creating the cosmos?

If you want to come in at this late hour as a christian and stand on the shoulders of secular science and say "ah ha, that's how god did it." Well no one can disprove that. 

We can explain everything in the universe and the universe without a god. And putting a god into it adds nothing. 

What is your point? I still don't get what you're trying to argue? Other than semantics.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 21, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> I didn't say you were a prick. I didn't claim to know more about God, hell the topic was Jesus, a man, not God. I did not say the Bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge, I said the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. Which YOU proved with your own citation. But I will say now, you are an arrogant little prick, and a liar, too.


Please explain to me how I've proven the anonymous writers of the gospels were contemporaries of jesus?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Your citation counters your claims:
> "Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
> Read the first sentence.
> On a side note, this is an example of your beliefs altering your perceptions


Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.

I think I can clear up some of that right here.

I'm passingly familiar with Ehrman, the blog of the PhD professor in new testiment I linked to...

I think you're confusing the gospels with the epistles.

The first 4 books are called the gospels. They are the story of the life of Jesus. And if you read the rest of the NT carefully, no other books actually speak of or about the life of jesus.

Most of the NT is comprised of letters by Paul, a man that Christian tradition claims never even met jesus. He was converted by a vision of him on the Damascus road, correct?

There are two books attributed to Peter. They do not mention jesus as a living breathing human being. They discuss his message. But they don't discuss his life.

That's the distinction I've been talking about.

People just assume that Peter would have met jesus since he is a central figure in the gospels. But read those books, I know you have, or likely are to have, but read them again with this thought fresh in mind. 'Is this coming from someone who was an apprentice to his master, or someone claiming to have their knowledge by some other means.'

It doesn't say. Peters books never say things like 'and all those years I walked with him he taught me this and that.'

They read much more like Paul's books that could have only come from revelation becuase jesus, by tradition, died before Paul converted.


Now, the importat bit that is cusing our argument here. Peter does not serve as a contemporary source for the life of Jesus. Here is why. Becuase he never mentions jesus as someone who was alive. It's just not in there. There is no 'proof of life' so to speak in either Peters 2 books or Paul's 13.

The only books that could claim to be a source for the actual life of jesus are the gospels. And they're anonymous and far too late to be contemporary.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.
> 
> I think I can clear up some of that right here.
> 
> ...


your bible thumping side just came out again.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Doesn't that tell you all we need to know? We know how woefully unreliable oral transmission of data is. We now know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Yet we're somehow supposed to believe that the story of Jesus was transmitted Orally from 30ad until after 100ad orally with little change?


We're not in disagreement about a "little change".We're in disagreement that Jesus came wholecloth out of mythology.The Christ myth theory denies even the most minimal of historicity.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke or John, they're anonymous. We're not sure where or by whom they were written. But it was 100 years or so after christ. Mark was the first. Then Matthew and Luke. And we have fragments dating back to about 270ad, and complete gospels dating back to about 350 ad.


P-52 is a fragment of John's gospel that dates to around 125 ad.Considering John is our latest canonical gospel,we can presume that the synoptics were recorded several years before 125 ad.


ThickStemz said:


> There may be a god. Idk. But there is loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up.


Will you be providing "loads of evidence" in this thread? Or are we to take your word on ...faith?


ThickStemz said:


> Nothing about jesus can be found earlier than 70/80 ad when Paul writes his letters and acts. Of the 13 letters of Paul, 7 are forgeries, meaning not written by Paul.


They are pseudepigraphal writings,not necessarily forgeries.There's a difference.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Supposedly...
> Paul never met jesus. Remember his story was that he was a persecutor of christians and had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Important to mention he never mentions jesus as a living breathing human walking around.


Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

dashcues said:


> We're not in disagreement about a "little change".We're in disagreement that Jesus came wholecloth out of mythology.The Christ myth theory denies even the most minimal of historicity.


That's not my understanding. My understanding is that christ myth theory says it's just as or even more likely that he never existed. To the extent the myth is based on a real person there is no resemblance.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
> Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.


Does the very fact that he has to say "born from a woman" not sound suspicious?

Where else would a person be born from?

My point is there is no stories of his life. No proof of life.


----------



## New Age United (Mar 22, 2016)

His name might not have been Jesus and some of the details of his life could be a complete fiction but the fact remains; a very very wise man, what some would call a prophet, is responsible for the words that the character jesus speaks in the new testament.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

New Age United said:


> His name might not have been Jesus and some of the details of his life could be a complete fiction but the fact remains; a very very wise man, what some would call a prophet, is responsible for the words that the character jesus speaks in the new testament.


No. Paul is responsible for spreading a story that may or may not reflect reality. To the extent it does reflect reality, we cannot be sure.

That's all we know. Anything beyond that is belief.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> That's not my understanding. My understanding is that christ myth theory says it's just as or even more likely that he never existed. To the extent the myth is based on a real person there is no resemblance.


Not your understanding?
Didn't you say that there is "loads of evidence that this *whole* jesus business is made up"?
And aren't you an advocate of Carrier's theory? He grants no historicity whatsoever.Claiming Jesus to be a complete myth.A 1st century celestial deity,crucified in the 2nd heavens.


----------



## Rrog (Mar 22, 2016)

Who cares? The OP is a known racist lowbrow.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Not your understanding?
> Didn't you say that there is "loads of evidence that this *whole* jesus business is made up"?
> And aren't you an advocate of Carrier's theory? He grants no historicity whatsoever.Claiming Jesus to be a complete myth.A 1st century celestial deity,crucified in the 2nd heavens.


Even carrier doesn't say this is 100% proven. He simply thinks it's more probable that there was no real jesus. 

There is a lot of evidence to his version of events. There is some evince that Jesus existed. It's just appropriate to correctly state the nature of that evidence. It isn't contemporary proof of life. 

Evidence isn't proof.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Does the very fact that he has to say "born from a woman" not sound suspicious?
> 
> Where else would a person be born from?


First you say that Paul never mentions Jesus as a living,breathing human.
After being shown that this was false, you now say that it's suspicious that Paul gives too much information that Jesus was human.
If inconsistency is what you're after,congratulations!


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

dashcues said:


> First you say that Paul never mentions Jesus as a living,breathing human.
> After being shown that this was false, you now say that it's suspicious that Paul gives too much information that Jesus was human.
> If inconsistency is what you're after,congratulations!


Characterizing my statement as saying Paul gives "too much information" is rather disingenuous.

If you asked me to tell you something about my friend and I said "he was born from a woman." What does that tell you?

What did you expect me to do, deny that it didn't say that? It clearly does say that. But it doesn't say much. And saying a man was "born of a woman" is about as meaningless of a statement as you can imagine. How else are men born?

What I said still holds. There are no life stories in these letters. No tellings of the time Christ told his friends this or that, the time he went such and such place. Nothing of the details of the life of a man who recently lived and was so important to these folks.

That isn't me having it both ways.

The gospels are full of such detail. Paul isn't a character in the gospels. The gospels were written well after Paul wrote his letters.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 22, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> There is some evince that Jesus existed.


Well.There's a non-surprising turn of events.In just a few pages you've went from "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up" to "There is some evidence that Jesus existed".


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 22, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Well.There's a non-surprising turn of events.In just a few pages you've went from "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up" to "There is some evidence that Jesus existed".


Its not a turn of events. Its just reality. Its not that there is no evidence, its that there is little or no good evidence.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Its not a turn of events. Its just reality. Its not that there is no evidence, its that there is little or no good evidence.


At the beginning of this thread you asserted that there was no evidence to even suggest he was real.Matter of fact,you said there was loads of evidence that the whole Jesus business was made up.
Do you still say that there is no evidence? No. Have you presented this "loads of evidence"? No.
Now you say "there is some evidence that Jesus existed"
That's a turn of events.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

dashcues said:


> At the beginning of this thread you asserted that there was no evidence to even suggest he was real.Matter of fact,you said there was loads of evidence that the whole Jesus business was made up.
> Do you still say that there is no evidence? No. Have you presented this "loads of evidence"? No.
> Now you say "there is some evidence that Jesus existed"
> That's a turn of events.



I might have meant to say there is no evidence to support that Jesus of the gospels was the son of god.

I might have been saying there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support jesus as depicted in the gospels.

I might have meant to say no good evidence and just left the word out... good.

If I stated that there is absolutely no evidence that there was an actual human being at the core of the jesus story then I spoke in error.

I'm simply here to discuss the theory. There is evidence for it. There is evidence that there was an actual person at the core of the jesus story. Neither proposition is more or less likely becuase of the skill of anyone who advocates it here.

That said, if I'm more swayed by the whole story Carrier puts together. I've not replicated it here. I'm not qualified or capable of doing it as he does. I simply enjoy the discussion.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

What I've been shocked by in this thread is that anyone could think that billions of people between about 200 C.E. and present day time believing in Christ is somehow evidence for him. 

The number of people who believe something centuries after the fact have no bearing on its truth.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I might have meant to say there is no evidence to support that Jesus of the gospels was the son of god.
> 
> I might have been saying there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support jesus as depicted in the gospels.
> 
> ...


Nice post ThickStemz.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> What I've been shocked by in this thread is that anyone could think that billions of people between about 200 C.E. and present day time believing in Christ is somehow evidence for him.


It's not that their belief is evidence of him,it's that their belief is evidence of their _faith _in him.


----------



## shishkaboy (Mar 23, 2016)

What did the Jesus dude look like?


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Nice post ThickStemz.


Thanks. Just trying to keep it real. To me it speaks volumes we cannot independently verify the life of Jesus. To some people that doesn't matter. I think that's all I was getting at.


dashcues said:


> It's not that their belief is evidence of him,it's that their belief is evidence of their _faith _in him.


Right. But those with faith in him will argue that it is evidence he is real.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> No I just misunderstood you, or you didn't express your thoughts well.
> 
> We can measure how far the galaxies are away. I can't explain it to you, I heard it explained and I understood it. Something to do with measuring the angle of observation to that galaxy 6 months apart while earth is on opposite sides of the sun.
> 
> ...


See, this is an example of your arrogance. I was perfectly clear. You added words to my statement to get it to mean what you wanted me to say, not what I actually said. I know about triangulation, you don't have to explain it to me. You claimed such photos existed, yet you now say me asking for one is absurd? I'm not a creationist, nor a Christian, but I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus existed. You provided a link to rebut that contemporaries wrote about him that actually confirmed that they did. You are to trying to argue shit I didn't say, because you have no argument to what I did say. Why should I provide a photo of Jesus? I never claimed one existed. You did claim a photo of the Big Bang existed.
It pisses me off when people can't rebut my statements and then try to pretend I said something different and argue with that.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Please explain to me how I've proven the anonymous writers of the gospels were contemporaries of jesus?


The link you provided to disprove it actually confirmed it. I quoted the pertinent line.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 23, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.
> 
> I think I can clear up some of that right here.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Wasn't Paul the prosecutor at Jesus trial? Never read much of the Bible, none since I was maybe 8 years old. Don't intend to restart now. When I was a young child, I was deadly ill. Whether it was a hallucination or a real event, I don't know, but an angel came to me and told me I would get better. I did start getting better. Today, I only have scar tissue in heart and a slight murmur to show for the illness I had. Was the hallucination/real event coincidental? I really don't know.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> See, this is an example of your arrogance. I was perfectly clear. You added words to my statement to get it to mean what you wanted me to say, not what I actually said. I know about triangulation, you don't have to explain it to me. You claimed such photos existed, yet you now say me asking for one is absurd? I'm not a creationist, nor a Christian, but I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus existed. You provided a link to rebut that contemporaries wrote about him that actually confirmed that they did. You are to trying to argue shit I didn't say, because you have no argument to what I did say. Why should I provide a photo of Jesus? I never claimed one existed. You did claim a photo of the Big Bang existed.
> It pisses me off when people can't rebut my statements and then try to pretend I said something different and argue with that.


I don't think you can find me saying anywhere here that there is a photograph of the big bang.

I might have said infrared photography/astronomy can be used to gather evidence of the big bang. Those are two different statements. Maybe I didn't word something well, but I doubt I would be so sloppy as to say they have a picture of the big bang.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> Pretty sure Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Wasn't Paul the prosecutor at Jesus trial? Never read much of the Bible, none since I was maybe 8 years old. Don't intend to restart now. When I was a young child, I was deadly ill. Whether it was a hallucination or a real event, I don't know, but an angel came to me and told me I would get better. I did start getting better. Today, I only have scar tissue in heart and a slight murmur to show for the illness I had. Was the hallucination/real event coincidental? I really don't know.


Peter would have been a disciple. Paul was an apostle. The difference between a disciple and an apostle is that an apostle never met the person in question, while the disciple probably did.

Paul never met Jesus. The trial as described in the NT would not have been in line with what we know of Roman justice. IF you read acts, Paul was someone who persecuted the early Church. He was on his way to Damascus when he was converted by the spirt of Jesus. It made him blind and he met a man there who was a Christian and the rest is history.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 23, 2016)

Red1966 said:


> The link you provided to disprove it actually confirmed it. I quoted the pertinent line.


Red, Ive gone back and read every post you've made in this thread. I see no place where it looks like you're quoting anything from off site.

I have a hunch you might be referring to something I linked to the Ehrman blog. Ehrman is a half ally to this point. He is an atheist, but he believes in a historical jesus beyond doubt in his mind. I wouldn't have linked to him to prove that jesus is myth.

Be that as it may, Ehrman is a NT expert and one of the most respected. I would have linked to him to cite evidence that Paul didn't meet or write during the life of Jesus.

This one statement is true and no secular scholar disagrees with it as far as I know.. "Outside of the bible, NT, there are no writings that independently verify the life of Jesus Christ."

Christians point to two mostly, Tacitus and Josephus. The Josephus entry is widely thought to be a forgery, a later addition to his wording. He was a Jew in the service of the Emperor, he is supposed to have said something like this "And then a man named Jesus appeared, who did thousands of wondrous things beyond description, and a tribe of Christians so named after him exists to this day." That's not an exact quote, but a fair representation from memory. In all his works that's it, since he was writing about 60 years after Jesus execution, his source wouldn't have been independent even if he did write it, he would have just written what Christians were telling him.

Tacitus wrote even later, and I cant remember, but its so late as to not be contemporary.

Independent verification of many figures less famous than Jesus was supposed to have been exists from this time and well before. There were people active who lived in that time and place who would have taken interest.

Nothing they might have written survives. Either they didn't write anything or it didn't survive. If they had written it but it didn't survive it is most likely because the 2000 years of Christian dominance since then condemned those writings.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 24, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Peter would have been a disciple. Paul was an apostle. The difference between a disciple and an apostle is that an apostle never met the person in question, while the disciple probably did.


An Apostle is a messenger.A disciple is a student.
Jesus' inner circle was called both interchangeably.
Most churches refer to the original 12 followers as Apostles(capital 'A'),and Paul they designate as an apostle(small 'a').
"Disciple" was originally reserved for his followers before ,and soon after his death.Something like 70 disciples were sent out to nearby churches after the great commission.Now,"disciple" is used by most churches to mean any devout follower.


ThickStemz said:


> Paul never met Jesus. The trial as described in the NT would not have been in line with what we know of Roman justice. IF you read acts, Paul was someone who persecuted the early Church. He was on his way to Damascus when he was converted by the spirt of Jesus. It made him blind and he met a man there who was a Christian and the rest is history.


The Sanhedrin(sorta like a Jewish court) held the trial,not the Romans.
The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy.They were under the law at the time to not sentence a capital punishment,so they took Jesus to the Roman governor(Pontius Pilate) to be crucified.There's more to it than that,but you get the gist.
And yeah,the trial was anything but formal.


----------



## dashcues (Mar 24, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I have a hunch you might be referring to something I linked to the Ehrman blog. Ehrman is a half ally to this point. He is an atheist, but he believes in a historical jesus beyond doubt in his mind. I wouldn't have linked to him to prove that jesus is myth.


Ehrman's not an atheist.He's agnostic.
Why is he a "half ally"?



ThickStemz said:


> Christians point to two mostly, Tacitus and Josephus. The Josephus entry is widely thought to be a forgery, a later addition to his wording. He was a Jew in the service of the Emperor, he is supposed to have said something like this "And then a man named Jesus appeared, who did thousands of wondrous things beyond description, and a tribe of Christians so named after him exists to this day." That's not an exact quote, but a fair representation from memory. In all his works that's it, since he was writing about 60 years after Jesus execution, his source wouldn't have been independent even if he did write it, he would have just written what Christians were telling him.


There are two quotes in Josephus,referring to Jesus.One is considered completely authentic by scholars,the other is acknowledged to have been redacted by later Christians.But even the questionable passage still mentions Jesus,despite the redactions.
This is the quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [*if indeed one ought to call him a man.*] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [*He was the Christ*.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [*On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.*] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
I've bolded the alleged interpolations.The rest of the passage is considered authentic by most scholars.
Josephus was a Jew,working for the Romans,writing Jewish history.Much of what we know of Jewish history in the 1st century comes to us through Josephus.
Considering the relationship of the Romans,Jews,and Christians at the time,it's a wonder there's any mention at all.


ThickStemz said:


> Tacitus wrote even later, and I cant remember, but its so late as to not be contemporary.
> 
> Independent verification of many figures less famous than Jesus was supposed to have been exists from this time and well before. There were people active who lived in that time and place who would have taken interest.


Again.Jesus preached to small villages in backwater Judea.When the entire area was under Roman rule and on the brink of war.
The Jews were awaiting their 'messiah' and there was no shortage of claimants.The people that would have eye-witnessed any miracles or deeds would have circulated it from village to village,but I can imagine any second or thirdhand tales would have been quickly dismissed under fear of charges of blasphemy.
It wasn't until after his death that word traveled beyond the smaller Jewish settlements.Once the inclusion of the gentiles began,his story spread like wildfire.


ThickStemz said:


> Nothing they might have written survives. Either they didn't write anything or it didn't survive. If they had written it but it didn't survive it is most likely because the 2000 years of Christian dominance since then condemned those writings.


This was a time that shortly preceded the Jewish-Roman war.The Romans destroyed the 2nd temple and eradicated almost all of the Jewish populace.
There is very little that would have survived.Throughout history,the Romans were very thorough in their actions.
Ever hear of _damnatio memoriae? _If they erased members of their own political elite from their history books,can you imagine how much would survive of their enemies?
Christianity began in secrecy.Amid two great powerhouses(Judaism and Rome's mystery religions) and a hellish war.Early Christians held assembly(ekklesia) at their own homes.Out of public eye for fear of persecution.
Not until the 4th century does it gain complete acceptance by the Roman Empire.


----------



## shishkaboy (Mar 27, 2016)




----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Historical analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Dash...Very long time no see (UM). I did not know you are a Pot smoker, and I assumed you were a Xtian sympathizer not an actual Xtian. 

Anyway I'm going to rebut your posts, and some of them have been previously on UM.

Carrier started off trusting the consensus that Jesus existed. So no presupposition on his part, and he explains his change of thinking in OHJ.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
> It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.


The James that Paul met was the "Brother of the Lord" in a fictive kinship of all Baptized Christians. Paul was also differentiating James from a racist James that did not behave in a spiritual family.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=291478


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> "knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.
> 
> I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
> What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her _until _she bore Jesus.
> ...


Every time Paul makes a theological point he refers to Old Testament scripture (He does not talk of a Jesus that was on Earth with a mother & father). Mark the first Gospel is heavily allegorical using the Old Testament. The later Gospels heavily repeat verbatim from Mark, but correct geographical, and theological mistakes. Meanwhile the last Gospel John takes more free license, and heavily contradicts the earlier Gospels.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

New Testament Interpolations & Forgeries

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html?m=1

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
> Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.


Wrong wrong wrong....

Let's start with your "Zion" misinformation. Paul does not say crucified in Zion. He's using Zion as a metaphor for the Jewish people. Paul is referring to the Old Testament. Jacob is the Biblical patriarch who after wrestling with God was named Israel by God. Paul refers to OT prophecy that says polytheism will be purged out of Jacob (Israel).

Romans 11:26 (NRSV)

"And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”"

Numbers 24:17 (NRSV)

17 "I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near—
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the borderlands of Moab,
and the territory of all the Shethites."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

Paul does not talk about an Earthly man born of a woman. Paul uses rich allegory, and metaphor using Abraham's wife as the nation of Israel. Jesus fulfills the law of the free woman, not descended from her.

Galatians 4 (YLT)

"4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, *come of a woman*, come under law,
5 that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;
6 and because ye are sons, God did send forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, `Abba, Father!'"

"22 for it hath been written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid-servant, and one by the free-woman,"

"25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children,
26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,"

"31 then, brethren, we are not a maid-servant's children, but the *free-woman's*."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=YLT


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> An Apostle is a messenger.A disciple is a student.
> *Jesus' inner circle was called both interchangeably.*
> Most churches refer to the original 12 followers as Apostles(capital 'A'),and Paul they designate as an apostle(small 'a').
> "Disciple" was originally reserved for his followers before ,and soon after his death.Something like 70 disciples were sent out to nearby churches after the great commission.Now,"disciple" is used by most churches to mean any devout follower.


Show actual evidence of this. No assertions, and no apologetic websites.



dashcues said:


> The Sanhedrin(sorta like a Jewish court) held the trial,not the Romans.
> The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy.They were under the law at the time to not sentence a capital punishment,so they took Jesus to the Roman governor(Pontius Pilate) to be crucified.There's more to it than that,but you get the gist.
> And yeah,the trial was anything but formal.


Bullshit! Julius Caesar gave the Jews special autonomy to conduct their own laws including capital punishment. 

The Jews holding a trial Passover eve, and an execution on Passover is a farce historically among many other things.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

dashcues said:


> There are two quotes in Josephus,referring to Jesus.One is considered completely authentic by scholars,the other is acknowledged to have been redacted by later Christians.But even the questionable passage still mentions Jesus,despite the redactions.
> This is the quote:
> About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [*if indeed one ought to call him a man.*] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [*He was the Christ*.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [*On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.*] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
> I've bolded the alleged interpolations.The rest of the passage is considered authentic by most scholars.
> ...


The only mention of Jesus outside of Xtian sources within the 1st century is in two different passages of Josephus. Xtians cling on to these with much desperation.

The thing is these are accidental scribal insertions from copying margin notes. Copyists would make notes next to passages on the scroll. Sometimes these notes would be added to the very passages by a future copyist.

All you have to do is read the last sentence in the James reference. The "About this time" passage, just read the first sentence of the next passage.

Without the Josephus reference to Jesus there's no mention of Jesus outside Xtian sources in the first century. The Pagan mentions of Jesus in the 2nd century just prove that there were Xtians (which nobody doubts), and what they believed.




dashcues said:


> Again.Jesus preached to small villages in backwater Judea.When the entire area was under Roman rule and on the brink of war.
> The Jews were awaiting their 'messiah' and there was no shortage of claimants.The people that would have eye-witnessed any miracles or deeds would have circulated it from village to village,but I can imagine any second or thirdhand tales would have been quickly dismissed under fear of charges of blasphemy.
> It wasn't until after his death that word traveled beyond the smaller Jewish settlements.Once the inclusion of the gentiles began,his story spread like wildfire.


We have many writings from this period, and region that survived. Yet no contemporary mention of Jesus that the Gospels portray as uber famous.




dashcues said:


> This was a time that shortly preceded the Jewish-Roman war.The Romans destroyed the 2nd temple and eradicated almost all of the Jewish populace.
> There is very little that would have survived.Throughout history,the Romans were very thorough in their actions.
> Ever hear of _damnatio memoriae? _If they erased members of their own political elite from their history books,can you imagine how much would survive of their enemies?
> Christianity began in secrecy.Amid two great powerhouses(Judaism and Rome's mystery religions) and a hellish war.Early Christians held assembly(ekklesia) at their own homes.Out of public eye for fear of persecution.
> Not until the 4th century does it gain complete acceptance by the Roman Empire.


LOL! The Romans made examples of their enemies.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

shishkaboy said:


> View attachment 3642896


Do not get caught up on Pagan parallels (there's a reason for this), but there are some exceptions.

Ancient Greek pottery ( 4th century BCE) depicting women performing a passion play for Dionysus (God of Wine). They are in ritual "Omophagia" consuming the flesh (pulp/skins), and blood (wine) of the God depicted on a Tropaion (Trophy). Starting off the annual festival priests put casks of water in the God's temple which turn into Wine the next day.


----------



## justugh (Jul 4, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> With all the similarities between the jesus story and lots of older religions and mythical figures there have long been those who have drawn those comparisons and said jesus was the myth too.
> 
> Becuase mainstream scholors have long held to the story that, son of god or not, there is a man behind the story of jesus. Why?
> 
> ...


no odds are the guy did live .........just the stuff that would make him look like a normal person was hidden by the church rem the bible as u know it was not out until 312 ad .........the info they allowed in it has been proven right and wrong so many times i lost count 

it comes down to something a person said to me long time ago 
the church is the first lvl of control on the human race 

the idea of heaven is a trick for the rich to keep acting the way they do .........if u go with out if u fight to live u will have a better life once u die becuase u did it right u fallowed our rules u get to enter in heaven 

hell the idea of orginal sin is to pressure ppl into fallowing them


----------



## oswizzle (Jul 4, 2016)

Fairy tales.. snakes can't speak and walking on water isn't possible... and looking like a supermodel with blue eyes with fair skin from that region is hilarious at best


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

justugh said:


> *no odds are the guy did live* .........just the stuff that would make him look like a normal person was hidden by the church rem the bible as u know it was not out until 312 ad .........the info they allowed in it has been proven right and wrong so many times i lost count
> 
> it comes down to something a person said to me long time ago
> the church is the first lvl of control on the human race
> ...


No. The odds are the guy did not live. You are working off assumptions with no scrutiny to the evidence other than the magic parts.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 4, 2016)

oswizzle said:


> Fairy tales.. snakes can't speak and walking on water isn't possible... and looking like a supermodel with blue eyes with fair skin from that region is hilarious at best


The Bible predicts the movie Shrek with a talking Donkey.

Bible for the win.


----------



## justugh (Jul 4, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> No. The odds are the guy did not live. You are working off assumptions with no scrutiny to the evidence other than the magic parts.


i think a man of that name lived .......do i think he did what he did no........
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

the man did live the man did do some stand up things .......over the next 312 years more stories told and other cultures mixed into it ....group of elites go this belong this out this belongs bang u have the bible that had control of good 1/3 of the ppl on the planet at the time now it has what 1/8 1/6 of the world under it control 

the whole islam thing is based off the same idea ........guy went into a cave 40 days later he came out with a book inspired by god


----------



## dashcues (Jul 4, 2016)

Hey Davros! Good to see ya again!
I'm hangin out with the wife and kids today,but I'll get around to your posts in a day or two.
Hope everything has been well.
Happy 4th!


----------



## Happygirl (Jul 5, 2016)

Captain Plank-Eye said:


> Also, yes people killed people in the name of God. Shit happens. Can i hate your dad and disrespect him to his face because hiz son(you) pissed me off or did something stupid? No, but let every man be accountable for his OWN actions, and the father is not guilty of the sons crimes. I admit, being a christian is hard, especially when you consider that if i talk about hiphop or pot the right way, you'd worship me but by sharing a bit of my heart you would push away everything i bring to the table for the sake of my faith. Where is YOUR heart? Do you desire mercy? The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
> 
> I am christian, i smoke pot, i have a job and a family that i support. Does my faith in God change that? I am calm when the storm comes. Reader, are you?


Amen


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 5, 2016)

justugh said:


> i think a man of that name lived .......do i think he did what he did no........
> http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources


I found the article disingenuous just like all apologetics. 

112 CE: Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan Regarding Christians

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

Pliny governing where is now present day Turkey writes to the Emperor on what to do with Christians. Romans in general were tolerant of other Religions, but they have to honor their Gods too.

This is evidence of Christians which nobody doubts, but not evidence of an historical Jesus.

115 CE: Cornelius Tacitus

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Tacitus' s Annuals is evidence of Christians, and what they believed.

The common apologetic is that Tacitus was such a good historian that he checked the actual documents on Jesus's crucifixion. Though a good historian of his day, there's no evidence he checked such records. The Gospels (at least Mark) were floating around by then, and Tacitus may have gotten the information from Pliny who corresponded with each other.

93-94 CE: Josephus Antiquities of the Jews

Book 18 Chapter 3.3 (Testimonium Flavianum)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

Even Apologists will admit partial interpolation. This is mainly because Josephus would not write many of the things it says. 

This is probably a scribes marginal note accidentally inserted by a later copyist (thinking an earlier copyist noted what they left out after proof reading).

Chapter 3.2 talks about Jews being massacred by Pilate.

Chapter 3.3 is the good news about Jesus.

Chapter 3.4 starts out "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder"

Wait! What? Sad calamity? What about Jesus?

Take out Chapter 3.3, and the texts flows.

Book 20 Chapter 9.1 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm

This is another marginal note inserted in the passage using Matthew 1:16

*Matthew 1:16*

"16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born *Jesus, who is called Christ*."

The last sentence in the passage Josephus tells us who Jesus is "* Jesus, son of Damneus *".

Keep also in mind that several early church apologists do not cite Josephus as evidence for Jesus.

188-217 CE: Talmud

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html

To use the Talmud as evidence for Jesus is laughable at best. Even Bart Ehrman dismisses this as too late. It reads as a polemic against the Jesus story rather than confirming it.

165-175 CE: Lucian of Samosata

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/lucian.html

A satire from the late 2nd century just relates Christians, and what they believed.




justugh said:


> the man did live the man did do some stand up things .......over the next 312 years more stories told and other cultures mixed into it ....group of elites go this belong this out this belongs bang u have the bible that had control of good 1/3 of the ppl on the planet at the time now it has what 1/8 1/6 of the world under it control


The Gospels say Jesus lived, and did miraculous things. The Gospels on textual scrutiny are literary artifices, and do not record history. 

People believing things is not evidence of such things being true. 




justugh said:


> the whole islam thing is based off the same idea ........guy went into a cave 40 days later he came out with a book inspired by god


No. The angel Gabriel recited the Quran to Muhammad over a 23 year period. Just because people believe the Quran does not make it true.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 5, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Hey Davros! Good to see ya again!
> I'm hangin out with the wife and kids today,but I'll get around to your posts in a day or two.
> Hope everything has been well.
> Happy 4th!


Take your time & same to you.

Here's me when I stubbed my toe.


----------



## justugh (Jul 6, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> I found the article disingenuous just like all apologetics.
> 
> 112 CE: Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan Regarding Christians
> 
> ...



man this be beyond a moot point ......u want hard proof start learning Aramaic Hebrew and Latin .....apply for access to the Vatican library and go a hunting

otherwise solve the Templar riddle gain access to their records(friday the 13th when the king had them raided under special orders and agreements with the church they found barely any of the treasure they were know to have nor the records) or the really good one find the 2nd copy of the library of Alexandra (half think the masons know a general location for this one) 

now here is just some basic history and human psychology

just going off the history their was a man and he did the 12 ppl thing teaching them a way to think and act .....now he is gone each one of those ppl have their own view on what had happen on what they saw felt and thought 
.....they argued and the 12 broke up each going the own way talking and teaching a different view ( we still have some today) .........we u know how ppl are when they are right they are right and everyone that does not think like them is wrong (seeing it now in the news ) same thing one sect vs another for a while 200plus years finally the roman catholic came along as head dogs and did the bible in 312 

after that date anyone muscling in on them were killed .....up to the 1800s 



odds are there is truth behide some of the stories ..........a man thinking differently then the masses has been know to happen ....those ideas and stories get written down and tweaked altered over time to be what it is now 

i am honestly shocked that it has not died out with the way it is written it like Shakespeare who the hell talks like that what do those words mean in the time it was written vs what they mean to us now ......but good stories are timeless i guess


----------



## New Age United (Jul 6, 2016)

justugh said:


> man this be beyond a moot point ......u want hard proof start learning Aramaic Hebrew and Latin .....apply for access to the Vatican library and go a hunting
> 
> otherwise solve the Templar riddle gain access to their records(friday the 13th when the king had them raided under special orders and agreements with the church they found barely any of the treasure they were know to have nor the records) or the really good one find the 2nd copy of the library of Alexandra (half think the masons know a general location for this one)
> 
> ...


Just one thing justugh; jesus did not tell them how to think and act he told them how to transcend thinking all together and how to just Be. And those 12 did not teach another way but the same way. "When you are to be heard before the high priests, do not worry as to the words you are to speak, for in that moment the Father will give you the words to speak" "it is not I but the father in me that does the works" From the emerald tablet "you are the Father/Mother of all things". What Jesus referred to as God was the true self; Immortal, Awareness. "Surely Allah is hearing, seeing, knowing, nigh " Muhammad


----------



## justugh (Jul 6, 2016)

New Age United said:


> Just one thing justugh; jesus did not tell them how to think and act he told them how to transcend thinking all together and how to just Be. And those 12 did not teach another way but the same way. "When you are to be heard before the high priests, do not worry as to the words you are to speak, for in that moment the Father will give you the words to speak" "it is not I but the father in me that does the works" From the emerald tablet "you are the Father/Mother of all things". What Jesus referred to as God was the true self; Immortal, Awareness. "Surely Allah is hearing, seeing, knowing, nigh " Muhammad


no i am sorry u are bit wrong they did break up after his death and they did go own ways 

currently their are 35 off shoots of the idea 
http://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=87

i do not need a high preist or anyone to talk to god that is part of what he was teaching .......u want to talk to god talk u do not need anyone else to get to him 

that part was the big thing the ppl in charge did not like ........it took the power away from the priest and gave it to the common person ...........then the idea of orginal sin was put in they started to build the wall up telling ppl the only way to god is tho them and they need money and secrets 


untill the 1800s the roman chruch was the strongest force on this plant ........more ppl died in the name of god then any other reason in all of history 
now instead of them it is the crazy sects of islam twisting the words into meaning what they want


----------



## Chunky Stool (Jul 6, 2016)

Cyrus420 said:


> I've noticed a trend of those who come from more established churches have a higher chance of turning on said church.


It is what they are most familiar with. And there's nothing zealots hate more than an insider. 
I am the heretic in my family. Mormon kool aid doesn't suit me...


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Jul 8, 2016)

Chunky Stool said:


> It is what they are most familiar with. And there's nothing zealots hate more than an insider.
> I am the heretic in my family. Mormon kool aid doesn't suit me...


That reminds me of a bit I heard on Prairie Home Companion's Tales from Lake Wobegon one time. Garrison was talking about a lady who was an atheist. But not in a general way. She was pretty specific that it was the Lutheran God she didn't believe in.

I was raised in the Assembly of God Church. Those are the guys who speak in tongues and do all sorts of other wild and crazy shit. {they were still handling snakes not all that long ago} There must have been an Irish saint somewhere down the line, because one of the ladies would get to shouting Shawn-lee, Shawn-lee, oh Shawn-lee. She could go on for hours. I stuck it out until I was 13. Never been back there, or anywhere else. I did flirt with the Creek Indians for a while, but their religion is just as far fetched as any of the others. I do like the smell of Cedar smudges. I miss that part of it.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 10, 2016)

justugh said:


> man this be beyond a moot point ......u want hard proof start learning Aramaic Hebrew and Latin .....apply for access to the Vatican library and go a hunting


The evidence for Jesus is in ancient Greek, and there's competent translations online. The evidence are the nonpseudographic letters of Paul, and the Gospels. The Gospels have Markan priority which the other Gospels copied from, and then expanded on.

Paul does not talk about an Earthly Jesus that had a ministry. Every time he makes a theological point he uses Old Testament scripture. Jesus is the OT. People were finding hidden meanings in the verses (often taking it out of context).

Mark is wildly fictitious, and has allegorical allusions to the Old Testament (this is not history) that has Jesus trump, or reverse the OT patriarchs. Here are examples of many that shows it's literary artifice:

*Mark 1:1-3

"1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
who shall prepare thy way;
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight—”"

Malachi 3:1

"3 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts."

Exodus 23:20

"20 “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared."

Isaiah 40:3

"3 A voice cries:
“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.""

*Mark 1:9-11

"9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” "

Psalm 2:7

"7 I will tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, “You are my son,
today I have begotten you."

Isaiah 42:1

"42 Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him,
he will bring forth justice to the nations."

Genesis 22:12

"12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”"

*Mark 1:12-13

"12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him."

Numbers 14:32-35

"32 But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. 33 And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. 34 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day a year, you shall bear your iniquity, forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ 35 I, the Lord, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.” "

1 Kings 19:5-7

"5 And he lay down and slept under a broom tree; and behold, an angel touched him, and said to him, “Arise and eat.” 6 And he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. And he ate and drank, and lay down again. 7 And the angel of the Lord came again a second time, and touched him, and said, “Arise and eat, else the journey will be too great for you.” "

*Mark 1:16-20

"16 And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19 And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb′edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb′edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him."

Exodus 4:27-28

"27 The Lord said to Aaron, “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.” So he went, and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. 28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord with which he had sent him, and all the signs which he had charged him to do."

Jeremiah 16:16

"16 “Behold, I am sending for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall catch them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks."

Ezekiel 47:10

"10 Fishermen will stand beside the sea; from En-ge′di to En-eg′laim it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea."

*Mark 1:21-28

"21 And they went into Caper′na-um *(“Village of Nahum”)*; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee."

*Nahum* 1:15

"15 Behold, on the mountains the feet of him
who brings good tidings,
who proclaims peace!
Keep your feasts, O Judah,
fulfil your vows,
for never again shall the wicked come against you,
he is utterly cut off."

1 Kings 17:18

"18 And she said to Eli′jah, “What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!” "

*Mark 1:29-31

"29 And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them."

1 Kings 17:8-16

"8 Then the word of the Lord came to him, 9 “Arise, go to Zar′ephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to feed you.” 10 So he arose and went to Zar′ephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks; and he called to her and said, “Bring me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.” 11 And as she was going to bring it, he called to her and said, “Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.” 12 And she said, “As the Lord your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a cruse; and now, I am gathering a couple of sticks, that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.” 13 And Eli′jah said to her, “Fear not; go and do as you have said; but first make me a little cake of it and bring it to me, and afterward make for yourself and your son. 14 For thus says the Lord the God of Israel, ‘The jar of meal shall not be spent, and the cruse of oil shall not fail, until the day that the Lord sends rain upon the earth.’” 15 And she went and did as Eli′jah said; and she, and he, and her household ate for many days. 16 The jar of meal was not spent, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke by Eli′jah."

*Mark 1:40-45

"40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I will; be clean.” 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 43 And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, 44 and said to him, “See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.” 45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."

Exodus 4:6-7

"6 Again, the Lord said to him, “Put your hand into your bosom.” And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. 7 Then God said, “Put your hand back into your bosom.” So he put his hand back into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh."

The rest of your post is just filled with Red Herrings...


----------



## justugh (Jul 11, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> The evidence for Jesus is in ancient Greek, and there's competent translations online. The evidence are the nonpseudographic letters of Paul, and the Gospels. The Gospels have Markan priority which the other Gospels copied from, and then expanded on.
> 
> Paul does not talk about an Earthly Jesus that had a ministry. Every time he makes a theological point he uses Old Testament scripture. Jesus is the OT. People were finding hidden meanings in the verses (often taking it out of context).
> 
> ...


long and written to a lvl a stoned me can fallow .......bravo 

counter points 
1 the bible is a collection of stores and views made by a group of guys in the 312 
2 the bible has been alter on purpose or by simple error .......the 2nd thing to this point is the meanings of words shift over time
3 the bible was a book designed to pass on morals and teaching that were deemed to be best ....bunch of stories like aesop fables ....stories are ideas a person hears something relating to them and listens it shows them a new line of thinking they can try ...........special side note i would love to get access to the Vatican libraries to see first gen copies of everything collected at that time
4 the bible has 35 off shoots all thinking theirs is the correct way of thinking 


i have given myself headaches more times then i can count thinking about all this ..........i mean i cover shit loads of data on everyone i could get hands onto ......i have had internet since 1997 (back in the days where it was just university libraries and ppl on chat rooms(mIRC) way before www and dot coms)


here is a quick way ......if u are down with spending time talking about this stuff this is what u need to do 
your old testaments what ever style u know of it learn pick out your ?s anything u want to double check ............go ask a rabbi for a meeting to talk and discuss views on the old testament ( hour maybe 2 ) and talk to him/them about what the bible saids in this part vs what the passage in the torah saids 

u will see what i mean ........a word said by them will not translate over into english ..........this happens all the time then someone put in the closets word to the original meaning but it is slightly altered the original meaning 

i am sure u can look it up on some web page if u want but i did this by talking to ppl .....most are more then cool to share and talk just need a appointment so they have the time 

if u really want to go deep then here is the starting point ........god is in the overlapping parts the rest is man made ( start with all current religions then move back into the classics/dead ones)


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 12, 2016)

justugh said:


> long and written to a lvl a stoned me can fallow .......bravo
> 
> counter points
> 1 the bible is a collection of stores and views made by a group of guys in the 312
> ...


1) The Bible is a collection of Books, and some letters. The OT is roughly (working on memory) from 1200-300 BCE. The OT is propaganda to unite nomadic people. The earliest books rewrite older polytheistic myths into monotheistic stories.

The NT consist of the letters of Paul 50-60 CE. The Gospels, and book of Acts 70-130 CE. It has interpolations, and forged letters later added.

I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible was made up in the early 4th century?

2) Yes I know the Bible has been messed with.

Here's an example:

The first translation is what we have today.

1 Corinthians 11:23 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was *betrayed* took bread,"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11:23&version=RSV

The second translation is literal from our earliest copy of the text.

1 Corinthians 11:23 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

"23 For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was *delivered* up, took bread,"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11:23&version=YLT

Notice the first translation Paul is in sync with the later Gospels. The literal translation contradicts the Gospels. 

Keep in mind Paul admits he gets his information from OT scripture, and visions from Jesus.

3) I do not see how this pertains to the historicity of Jesus.

Since you are so obsessed over the Vatican, and the 4th century answer this: Do you think Constantine's mother & sister were devout Christians? Keep in mind that most of our information about them is through Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea.

4) There's basicly 3-4 sects of Judaism, and 30,000-40,000 denominations of Christianity.

I'll stick with secular historians for my information...Thanks


----------



## justugh (Jul 12, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> 1) The Bible is a collection of Books, and some letters. The OT is roughly (working on memory) from 1200-300 BCE. The OT is propaganda to unite nomadic people. The earliest books rewrite older polytheistic myths into monotheistic stories.
> 
> The NT consist of the letters of Paul 50-60 CE. The Gospels, and book of Acts 70-130 CE. It has interpolations, and forged letters later added.
> 
> ...


not obsessed with them .....just they have the largest collection on history then any other place on earth ( since the found of the thing ppl been willing them their books and works ) .....if u want history actual accounting that have not been messed with then u need the original papers 

they are the only ones that have them .........they have it in there but restrict access .....the truth is there the original everything before it has been messed with by man 

u are the one looking for this ....that is where to get it (other wise u are going on what others thing from false data in return makes the whole thing moot as u will never get to the real truth of it 

that is my point ..........given the extent of tech now a days i can not see why they do not have a group of priest digitally coping the whole thing to a database to save the works them self as some of them are dating back in the BC times 

a project like that would make a database anyone could access ....setting facts strait once and for all ......think about the history just from the daily life of someone from then written in a diary like ann frank did 

u want to know the whole truth about jesus and what is what that is the only place on this earth or anywhere that u will find answers to it 


one last thing ............daleks are dead doctor killed the last one ...... think of me as the doctor in this chat ............u want the truth one way to get it unless u have time traveling and that is in the vatican library

and why the hell do u keep quoting bible passages 
u want it from historians that started off at the wrong point so everything of their work is messed up ........get it from ppl that were there in the original work


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 13, 2016)

justugh said:


> not obsessed with them .....just they have the largest collection on history then any other place on earth ( since the found of the thing ppl been willing them their books and works ) .....if u want history actual accounting that have not been messed with then u need the original papers
> 
> they are the only ones that have them .........they have it in there but restrict access .....the truth is there the original everything before it has been messed with by man
> 
> ...


Maybe you will get it?

*Mark 2:2-5 2:11-12

2 And when he returned to Caper′na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”

"11 “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” "

2 Kings 1:2-4

"2 Now Ahazi′ah fell through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samar′ia, and lay sick; so he sent messengers, telling them, “Go, inquire of Ba′al-ze′bub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this sickness.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Eli′jah the Tishbite, “Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samar′ia, and say to them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Ba′al-ze′bub, the god of Ekron?’ 4 Now therefore thus says the Lord, ‘You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die.’” So Eli′jah went."

*Mark 3:1-6

"3 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero′di-ans against him, how to destroy him."

1 Kings 13:1-7

"13 And behold, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jerobo′am was standing by the altar to burn incense. 2 And the man cried against the altar by the word of the Lord, and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josi′ah by name; and he shall sacrifice upon you the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you, and men’s bones shall be burned upon you.’” 3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign that the Lord has spoken: ‘Behold, the altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.’” 4 And when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar at Bethel, Jerobo′am stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Lay hold of him.” And his hand, which he stretched out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself. 5 The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. 6 And the king said to the man of God, “Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.” And the man of God entreated the Lord; and the king’s hand was restored to him, and became as it was before. 7 And the king said to the man of God, “Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward."

*Mark 3:13-35

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3:13-35&version=RSV

Exodus 18

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+18&version=RSV

Deuteronomy 1:23

"23 The thing seemed good to me, and I took twelve men of you, one man for each tribe;"

*Mark 4:35-41

"35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37 And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” 41 And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” "

Jonah 1:4-6

"4 But the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up. 5 Then the mariners were afraid, and each cried to his god; and they threw the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it for them. But Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship and had lain down, and was fast asleep. 6 So the captain came and said to him, “What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we do not perish.” "

Psalm 107:23-29

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+107:23-29&version=RSV


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Jul 16, 2016)

Hey guys. I keep coming back to see if a Doctor Who convention had broke out yet. 

Tom Robbins has a good take on this subject in Another Roadside Attraction. A very good read. You guys should check it out.


----------



## FATBOYFRESH (Jul 17, 2016)

"the christ" position or office is NO MYTH... The people who have portrayed him and all akin are myths... Principles of the celestial beings... But the real moshiach is REAL and will make chNges on earth... And not in a rrligious context


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 18, 2016)

FATBOYFRESH said:


> "the christ" position or office is NO MYTH... The people who have portrayed him and all akin are myths... Principles of the celestial beings... But the real moshiach is REAL and will make chNges on earth... And not in a rrligious context


That's very reassuring. Thanks


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 18, 2016)

Larry {the} Gardener said:


> Hey guys. I keep coming back to see if a Doctor Who convention had broke out yet.
> 
> Tom Robbins has a good take on this subject in Another Roadside Attraction. A very good read. You guys should check it out.


Did Timmay study neurology, and ancient history?


----------



## FATBOYFRESH (Jul 18, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> That's very reassuring. Thanks


I said nothing abt jesus


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 18, 2016)

FATBOYFRESH said:


> I said nothing abt jesus


So what annointed are you talking about?


----------



## The303Yeti (Jul 18, 2016)

I found that I or anyone else is not able to disprove anything in the Bible. Being a rebel doesn't prove or disprove anything except ignorance.


----------



## The303Yeti (Jul 18, 2016)

Corso312 said:


> I went to catholic grade school n highschool, even @ the tender age of 9 I knew the bible and religion was horseshit.. I had nuns and I used to cracked weekly for asking "what about the dinosaurs?"


???? You stopped expanding your knowledge at 9. If you had continued you would learn that the Catholic Church was wrong but not the Bible. The Bible mentioned the dinosaurs multiple times and says nothing about the world being 6000 years old. That was fabricated by the Catholic Church.


----------



## oswizzle (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## R1b3n4 (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 18, 2016)

The Bible was intellectually constructed in parables by men to control masses. Rome was invading Israel at the time of its creation. Before the Bible, Kemet and the Pyramids of Egypt were. The Romans and Greeks, wanting to expand their empires, were fighting over Israel, and the Jews were trying to launch a rebellion in defense of their homeland. Just take the Egyptian Gods, Isis the Mother, Ra the Sun, and El the Lesser Sun (Saturn, which during the time of the pyramids, appeared as a Burning Red Star like our sun but smaller, but has since lost its brightness. Relatable to the story of Lucifer, not by accident.) Put them together and what do you get? Israel. The Jews, or Gods Chosen people, who were defending themselves from invasions from the Greeks and Romans.


----------



## FATBOYFRESH (Jul 18, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> So what annointed are you talking about?



The one whom is the measiah was not jesus... His name was immanuel..... If you pay close atention to the nt and ot arxhetypical messiahs.... You know the difference... One came and died ,was sacrificed,for the sin of OTHERS.. Where as immanuel came to dole out justice and not die... But live and be Living god and restore his people who where down trotten and a product of multiple slaveries spanning several thpusand years.... (babylonian egyptian greek roman and american slaveries)... He came to rule as a lion not get slaughtered like a lamb!


----------



## oswizzle (Jul 19, 2016)

Guan Yu
Chinese God of War


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 19, 2016)

The303Yeti said:


> ???? You stopped expanding your knowledge at 9. If you had continued you would learn that the Catholic Church was wrong but not the Bible. The Bible mentioned the dinosaurs multiple times and says nothing about the world being 6000 years old. That was fabricated by the Catholic Church.


He stopped getting indoctrinated by garbage at age 9. Good for him.

The Bible does not mention Dinosaurs, but common animals at the time.

The Bible does not say 6,000 years old, but it's chronology can be extrapolated as such.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

GroDank101 said:


> The Bible was intellectually constructed in parables by men to control masses. Rome was invading Israel at the time of its creation. Before the Bible, Kemet and the Pyramids of Egypt were. The Romans and Greeks, wanting to expand their empires, were fighting over Israel, and the Jews were trying to launch a rebellion in defense of their homeland. Just take the Egyptian Gods, Isis the Mother, Ra the Sun, and El the Lesser Sun (Saturn, which during the time of the pyramids, appeared as a Burning Red Star like our sun but smaller, but has since lost its brightness. Relatable to the story of Lucifer, not by accident.) Put them together and what do you get? Israel. The Jews, or Gods Chosen people, who were defending themselves from invasions from the Greeks and Romans.


^ This is why proper education is important. The dark side of Youtube rears it's ugly head again.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

The303Yeti said:


> I found that I or anyone else is not able to disprove anything in the Bible. Being a rebel doesn't prove or disprove anything except ignorance.


Bible Buried Secrets


----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 20, 2016)

Jesus survived the cross. He never died. That's where the Jesus Lives movement comes from. That's why he was not found in the tomb. When Pilate was informed of his death, even he was shocked because he didn't think jesus would have time to die before, by law, he and the two others would need to be taken down and have their legs broken so they could not run away for the Sabbath (Sunday). Jesus's legs were never broken. Then when he is in disguise as a gardener to Mary, he tells her not to touch him and that he has not yet ascended. He then instructs her to tell the others that he has ascended. Why would he tell her to lie? Because he didn't want to be found by authorities and confiscated. Jesus beat the cross, escaped, continued his bloodline that is still in continuation today.



Dalek Supreme said:


> ^ This is why proper education is important. The dark side of Youtube rears it's ugly head again.


I'm sure you don't know much about the knights Templar, or the crusade either. It doesn't even sound like you're European. Even if you aren't European, everyone should be able to decifer what they read in the Bible.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

FATBOYFRESH said:


> The one whom is the measiah was not jesus... His name was immanuel..... If you pay close atention to the nt and ot arxhetypical messiahs.... You know the difference... One came and died ,was sacrificed,for the sin of OTHERS.. Where as immanuel came to dole out justice and not die... But live and be Living god and restore his people who where down trotten and a product of multiple slaveries spanning several thpusand years.... (babylonian egyptian greek roman and american slaveries)... He came to rule as a lion not get slaughtered like a lamb!


WOW! It must be true!

Matthew 1:23 (RSV)

"23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el” "

Matthew 28:20 (RSV)

"20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, *I am with you always*, to the close of the age.” "

Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

"14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el."

Emmanuel= God is with us

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Emmanuel


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

GroDank101 said:


> Jesus survived the cross. He never died. That's where the Jesus Lives movement comes from. That's why he was not found in the tomb when the Mary who jesus had just casted seven devils out of. When Pilate was informed of his death, even he was shocked because he didn't think jesus would have time to die before, by law, he and the two others would need to be taken down and have their legs broken so they could not run away for the Sabbath (Sunday). Jesus's legs were never broken. Then when he is in disguise as a gardener to Mary, he tells her not to touch him and that he has not yet ascended. He then instructs her to tell the others that he has ascended. Why would he tell her to lie? Because he didn't want to be found by authorities and confiscated. Jesus beat the cross, escaped, continued his bloodline that is still in continuation today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't know much about the knights Templar, or the crusade either. It doesn't even sound like you're European. Even if you aren't European, everyone should be able to decifer what they read in the Bible.


So your source is the Gospels (treating it as an historical document), and Dan Brown.

I would educate you, but I can see the unwilling.


----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> So your source is the Gospels, and Dan Brown.
> 
> I would educate you, but I can see the unwilling.


Not sure who Dan brown is. Every living thing with animal cells is made of Carbon. Carbon has 6 protons neutrons and electrons. Its no coincidence that the number of the beast is only found in Revelations, which wasnt added to the Bible until the age of modern scientific discovery near the year 1620 AD. (A rough time for Europe.) Jesus is meant to represent a Sun, not a Son. The ancients already knew what they are trying to get you to take from the Bible. They taught that we each have a Little Sun in Us. Sun backwards is N us. Even when it gets dark and cold, we produce our own body heat and are able to survive. Endothermic is the term.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

GroDank101 said:


> Not sure who Dan brown is. Every living thing with animal cells is made of Carbon. Carbon has 6 protons neutrons and electrons. Its no coincidence that the number of the beast is only found in Revelations, which wasnt added to the Bible until the age of modern scientific discovery near the year 1620 AD. (A rough time for Europe.) Jesus is meant to represent a Sun, not a Son. The ancients already knew what they are trying to get you to take from the Bible. They taught that we each have a Little Sun in Us. Sun backwards is N us. Even when it gets dark and cold, we produce our own body heat and are able to survive. Endothermic is the term.


^ The powers of Dopamine strikes again.

Dr. Michael Shermer: The Pattern Behind Self Deception


----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> ^ The powers of Dopamine strikes again.
> 
> Dr. Michael Shermer: The Pattern Behind Self Deception


What's your point? Dopamine is a naturally occurring hormone that all of us produce. I didn't learn anything new from that video.


----------



## FATBOYFRESH (Jul 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> WOW! It must be true!
> 
> Matthew 1:23 (RSV)
> 
> ...



Remember that its claimed jesus IS immanuel... But he isnt. . The communion rituistically is anti the messiahs ethnic relgious tenets...

Jesus... If he is imanuel... Was a hebrew.... And eating blood ..for example.. Is forbiden.... Then... We know communion us a puerile farce


----------



## oldtimer54 (Jul 20, 2016)

Jesus loves me this I know 
For the bible tells me so 
Little ones to him belong
They are weak but he is strong


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

GroDank101 said:


> What's your point? Dopamine is a naturally occurring hormone that all of us produce. I didn't learn anything new from that video.


First off are you saying the entire book of Revelation is from the 17th century, or the number of the beast verse is an interpolation from the 17th century?


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 20, 2016)

FATBOYFRESH said:


> Remember that its claimed jesus IS immanuel... But he isnt. . The communion rituistically is anti the messiahs ethnic relgious tenets...
> 
> Jesus... If he is imanuel... Was a hebrew.... And eating blood ..for example.. Is forbiden.... Then... We know communion us a puerile farce


We know the Gospels are literary creations.

Mark 5:1-20

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5:1-20&version=RSV

Psalm 107:4-7 107:10-14

"4 Some wandered in desert wastes,
finding no way to a city to dwell in;
5 hungry and thirsty,
their soul fainted within them.
6 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress;
7 he led them by a straight way,
till they reached a city to dwell in."

"10 Some sat in darkness and in gloom,
prisoners in affliction and in irons,
11 for they had rebelled against the words of God,
and spurned the counsel of the Most High.
12 Their hearts were bowed down with hard labor;
they fell down, with none to help.
13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress;
14 he brought them out of darkness and gloom,
and broke their bonds asunder."

Exodus 14:27-29

"27 So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the Lord routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left."

Carrier: Why the Gospels Are Myth






Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction


----------



## The303Yeti (Jul 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> He stopped getting indoctrinated by garbage at age 9. Good for him.
> 
> The Bible does not mention Dinosaurs, but common animals at the time.
> 
> The Bible does not say 6,000 years old, but it's chronology can be extrapolated as such.


Lol I won't waste my time on you but you might actually read something instead of spitting other people's bs.


----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> First off are you saying the entire book of Revelation is from the 17th century, or the number of the beast verse is an interpolation from the 17th century?


I'm saying that the writings have been subject to errors of interpretation and translation for over 1600 years of humans passing down the Bible. Yes, the bible you will read today, wasn't finished until the King James Version came to be in 1611.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 22, 2016)

The303Yeti said:


> Lol I won't waste my time on you but you might actually read something instead of spitting other people's bs.


*"Where Did a Young-earth Worldview Come From?*

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years

~6,000 years"

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

The Bible is bullshit. 

Dr. Robert M Price The Bible Geek

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCapVgbDZcjJIzgSiZWtrnPg


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 22, 2016)

GroDank101 said:


> I'm saying that the writings have been subject to errors of interpretation and translation for over 1600 years of humans passing down the Bible. Yes, the bible you will read today, wasn't finished until the King James Version came to be in 1611.
> View attachment 3737247


The KJV is just a translation. I do not doubt errors, and interpolations (just read Bart Ehrman's "Forged".

As for the Book of Revelation it's from the late 1st century, and we have early Christian Apologist from the 2nd century writing about it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html

The Beast is Emperor Nero.

"What is curious is not so much that 666 can be decoded to signify Nero but that the name of the emperor is encoded in this particular number, especially since it could have been represented more readily in other ways. If "Nero" is retained in Greek, for example, the numeration would be 955 or, if "Neron," 1005; in Hebrew, then 256 or 306, respectively. It only is when the Greek letters are transliterated into Hebrew that the numeration adds up to 666 (_nrwn qsr_,50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100 + 60 + 200). Even so, this is an alternate spelling, a letter in "Neron" being transliterated (_nrwn_ instead of _nrw_) but not in "Caesar" (_qsr_ instead of _qysr_), although these forms do appear in both the Talmud and a contemporary Aramaic scroll from Qumran. It is intriguing, therefore, that 666 encodes the name of Nero in Hebrew when Revelation, itself, was written in Greek."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html


Please get with actual scholarship instead of spouting sensationalism from slow thinking YouTube videos.


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Jul 22, 2016)

I'm pretty happy with the Creator {from the Creek Indian religion}. But if I were out looking for a hip God, none of them are cooler than this guy, even with no arms.


----------



## oswizzle (Jul 22, 2016)




----------



## Dumme (Jul 23, 2016)

This is all just a dream...


----------



## The devils lettuce (Jul 23, 2016)

It's a fictional book with various fictional stories inside. I personally enjoy the story where a concubine is raped, beaten and left on a door step. Some gritty shit. Lol, Hail Satan.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Jul 24, 2016)

The devils lettuce said:


> It's a fictional book with various fictional stories inside. I personally enjoy the story where a concubine is raped, beaten and left on a door step. Some gritty shit. Lol, Hail Satan.


I love Leviticus 14...It's how I keep powdery mildew away from my garden, my skin leprosy free, and God lets you use a magic wand.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14&version=RSV


----------



## GroDank101 (Jul 30, 2016)

the Earth is 6k years old, and I am George Washington lol


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Jul 30, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> *"Where Did a Young-earth Worldview Come From?*
> 
> Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
> 
> ...





GroDank101 said:


> the Earth is 6k years old, and I am George Washington lol


There is no need to worry about this one, Mr Washington. It was decided over 200 years ago. At the end of the 16th century and into the beginning of the 17th, the leading experts in the fields of science and religion were gathered together from the far reaches of the British Empire. They took everything into account, and read the Bible forwards and backwards, counting years as they ticked off. Their years of thorough and far reaching research came up with the date God created the world. It was Monday, October the 4th, 4004BC. At 0900 GMT {London Time}

We all know nothing of import has happened since then to change our minds, right?


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 2, 2016)

*The Gospel of Mark which is seen by most scholars as the first written Gospel (circa 70's CE) is chock full of spiritual allegory. The fleeing naked young man is just one of many that's mistaken as historical kernels of truth.*

Mark 14:48-52

"48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

51 And there followed him a certain*young man*, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the*young man*laid hold on him:

52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

*Now who's this young man covered with common linen cloth which easily sheds away?*

Mark 16:3-8

"3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a*young man*sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

*Now who's this young man wearing an uncommonly clean, and luxurious white Robe?*

*Now the argument for the hypothetical "Q" makes it look like a single document. In reality the unknown authors of the canonical Gospels drew on many sources, and some we no longer have. As for the young men in Mark we can see the spiritual meaning, and it's inspiration from Paul.*

1 Corinthians 15:47-53 (circa 50's CE)

"47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

*The garment of the young man fleeing Jesus represents the Earthly flesh that decays, and the empty Tomb young man's garment represents Heavenly flesh that's incorruptible.*

*When you have scholars looking at the Gospels as if it was history embellished instead of the parable within parables that it is? Then no wonder said scholars cannot see how useless the Gospels are for determining Jesus's historicity.*


----------



## Az-uar Iam (Aug 16, 2016)

I believe Jesus did exist. The creation of Christ is the lie.


----------



## The devils lettuce (Aug 16, 2016)

God sent himself from heaven because he was the only sacrifice good enough for himself. Narcissist...


----------



## The devils lettuce (Aug 16, 2016)

Az-uar Iam said:


> I believe Jesus did exist. The creation of Christ is the lie.


He does exist, he does my yard every Thursday. Very nice fellow.


----------



## Az-uar Iam (Aug 16, 2016)

The devils lettuce said:


> He does exist, he does my yard every Thursday. Very nice fellow.


I'm believe that's (hey-soos) & I imagine he would be



The devils lettuce said:


> God sent himself from heaven because he was the only sacrifice good enough for himself. Narcissist...


Ok


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Aug 20, 2016)

Az-uar Iam said:


> I believe Jesus did exist. The creation of Christ is the lie.


The Dead Sea Scrolls talks about someone known as The Teacher {if my old wore out memory is working this morning} who would fit the bill pretty good.


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Aug 20, 2016)

This Paul Thorn song made me think of this thread.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 20, 2016)

Az-uar Iam said:


> I believe Jesus did exist. The creation of Christ is the lie.


Jesus was a common name in ancient Palestine.

So yes several Jesus's existed.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 20, 2016)

Larry {the} Gardener said:


> The Dead Sea Scrolls talks about someone known as The Teacher {if my old wore out memory is working this morning} who would fit the bill pretty good.


The dead sea scrolls were from a sect called the essenes. They write about the teacher of righteousness. 

They were doing Midrashic readings of the OT. They looked at select verses for hidden meanings a la Bible code. 

This is how Philo of Alexandria came up with his Logos by combining Platonic/Hellenistic ideas, and midrashic reading of the OT.

Guess what. Philo's archangel Logos has the same descriptive names for Paul's Jesus. Firstborn of God, image of God, God's agent of creation to name a few.

Jesus started as an archangel from midrashic reading of the OT that later got confused as historical.


----------



## Az-uar Iam (Aug 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> Jesus was a common name in ancient Palestine.
> 
> So yes several Jesus's existed.


Not disagreeing. Never heard of him mentioning himself as Christ. I think the idea of a prophet was hijacked, allowing Roman Catholics/Christianity to rise.


----------



## Larry {the} Gardener (Aug 20, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> The dead sea scrolls were from a sect called the essenes. They write about the teacher of righteousness.
> 
> They were doing Midrashic readings of the OT. They looked at select verses for hidden meanings a la Bible code.
> 
> ...


Again my memory isn't intact, but I recall there being a {mythical} half man/ half god from the same town with most of the same details. They didn't even have to leave town to think up the idea.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 21, 2016)

Az-uar Iam said:


> Not disagreeing. Never heard of him mentioning himself as Christ. I think the idea of a prophet was hijacked, allowing Roman Catholics/Christianity to rise.


Christ means annointed. A loaf of bread can be christened with oil. Cyrus the Great was anointed by God to lead the Jews out of Babylonian captivity. Moses led the Jews out of Egypt through God, so he was a form of a christ/messiah.

Moses is a fictional character while Cyrus was a Persian king.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 21, 2016)

Larry {the} Gardener said:


> Again my memory isn't intact, but I recall there being a {mythical} half man/ half god from the same town with most of the same details. They didn't even have to leave town to think up the idea.


"Christian exegetes have long studied the gospels in light of Rabbinical techniques of biblical interpretation including allegory, midrash, and pesher. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls lent great impetus to the recognition of the widespread use among New Testament writers of the pesher technique whereby prophetic prooftexts for the divine preordination of recent of events was sought. Slower (but still steady) in coming has been the realization of the wide extent to which the stories comprising the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are themselves the result of haggadic midrash upon stories from the Old Testament (as we may call it here in view of the Christian perspective on the Jewish canonthat concerns us). The New Testament writers partook of a social and religious environment in which currents of Hellenism and Judaism flowed together and interpenetrated in numerous surprising ways, the result of which was not merely the use of several versions of the Old Testament texts, in various languages, but also the easy switching back and forth between Jewish and Greek sources like Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions."

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm


----------



## R1b3n4 (Aug 21, 2016)




----------



## dashcues (Aug 26, 2016)

Dalek Supreme said:


> Hey Dash...Very long time no see (UM). I did not know you are a Pot smoker, and I assumed you were a Xtian sympathizer not an actual Xtian.
> 
> Anyway I'm going to rebut your posts, and some of them have been previously on UM.
> 
> Carrier started off trusting the consensus that Jesus existed. So no presupposition on his part, and he explains his change of thinking in OHJ.


Haven't forgotten about ya Davros.Dealing with some stuff down here in Louisiana.I'll be back at it before too long.
Hope all is well with you and yours


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Aug 28, 2016)

dashcues said:


> Haven't forgotten about ya Davros.Dealing with some stuff down here in Louisiana.I'll be back at it before too long.
> Hope all is well with you and yours


No problem. I hope all is safe. Material things are just that. Life is more. Hope all is well.

*Genesis 9:11 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)*

"11 And I have established My covenant with you, and *all* flesh is not any more cut off by waters of a deluge, and there is not any more a deluge to destroy the earth.' "


----------

