# Jesus Crucified For Blasphemy Or Treason?



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

This is a carry over from another thread in politics.

JVS is of the opinion that Christ was crucified by the Romans for treason.

I maintain that the Romans crucified Christ for blasphemy at the behest of the Sanhedrin, because of the way Roman rule worked with local governments of its conquered.



what... huh? said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> The roman authority was able to keep its conquered lands by leaving the governing bodies in place, (the Sanhedrin in the case of the Jews) but holding ultimate authority over them. The Jews cried for Him to be crucified for blasphemy, claiming to be the "king of the Jews"... because His bloodline is that of God.
> 
> ...


To which he replied:



PVS said:


> it would have been an embarrassing and insulting affront on the roman empire to enforce jewish scripture in any way.
> the charge related to jesus claiming himself 'king of the jews', jews who were governed by rome. therefore it could be
> translated to high treason. that was the charge. declaring himself king of anyone or anything on roman territory.
> 
> ...


Now that we are all caught up.

Luke 22
70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. 
71And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Further witness to what crime? Being the Son of God... 

2And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. 

Now... not only did Jesus and His disciples pay their taxes... but He never claimed to be an earthly king.

Pilot found no fault with these charges and wanted to let him go. They were trying to find a vested interest in Rome executing Him. It was only under great protest of the crime of blasphemy that he submitted to THEIR LAW.


A brief history of the Roman empire and authority.

How Rome was able to conquer and control so much of the globe was because of a brilliant strategy, which began with war, and ended with taxes. They allowed their conquered people to maintain their own governments, religions, and activities wherever they went, to prevent civil unrest... leaving outposts containing small groups of people who oversaw the ruling bodies.

People were only forced to pay taxes, and not offend Caesar. Outside of that, things ran pretty much as they had before they arrived. They served as executioners and tax collectors... while keeping a watchful eye on the governments to prevent usurping Roman rule. If there were any kind of uprising, troops were brought in and the people were punished HORRIBLY... so pretty much things went smoothly. That is how they were able to rule so many for so long... it was KEY to their strategy. 

The notion that it would be embarrassing to allow the religious government follow it's own law is grossly inaccurate. It was completely reversed. They ALWAYS allowed the free exercise of religion, and local tribal rule.

The Jews brought Jesus forth for blasphemy as clearly demonstrated in Acts, on THEIR legal authority... and when Pilot says... I don't understand... they try and gain support by suggesting he preached that taxes should not be payed to rome... which again... the ROMAN authority had no belief in... and had to be convinced that it was simply their way. Remember... this is the birth of the senate... of the belief that a people are best left to govern themselves.

Pilot was against the death of Jesus, but was committed to not interfering in the local religious authorities decision... so at their INSISTENCE he was put to death.

You take king to mean a territorial king... whereas the title was given because of the bloodline of God. It was blasphemy... and doing miracles and whatnot? Demonstrating the power of God?


WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH 

BUURRRRN HIMMMMMMMM...



That is simply how Rome handled maintaining foreign authority... by giving much of it away.

"The Roman Empire encompassed a huge amount of territory, but also allowed people of many different cultures to retain their heritage into modern times. The empire helped to perpetuate the art, literature, and philosophy of the Greeks, the religious and ethical system of the Jews, the new religion of the Christians, Babylonian astronomy and astrology, and cultural elements from Persia, Egypt, and other eastern civilizations. The Romans supplied their own peculiar talents for government, law, and architecture and also spread their Latin language. In this way they created the Greco-Roman synthesis, the rich combination of cultural elements that for two millennia has shaped what we call the Western tradition."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502785/roman_empire.html

The charge of "forbidding tribute" was thrown in to try and entice Pilot to rule in their favor.. because it was his ultimate decision... and he believed in a lot of Gods... so he might not understand the offense. His Gods spawned all the time with humans... so they had to make a case because at the end of the day... it was his decision to make.

24And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. 


Not as Rome requires, not as Caesar requires, but as the Sanhedrin Priests required. 



Just as a point of record, Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God either. He ALWAYS referred to Himself as the son of man.


----------



## fried at 420 (Aug 14, 2009)

i thought jesus was fake
like you saw him on south park


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

Treason:
1. *betrayal of country: *a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.

Blasphemy:
1.* a* *:* the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God *b* *:* the act of claiming the attributes of deity.


Pilot clearly demonstrates that Christ did not offend Rome.

Pilot clearly does not see any offense warranting death.

Pilot is clearly just keeping the peace by letting the civil authority have its way.


I mean... if you believe the bible, and know ANYTHING about the Roman empire...


The only treason he committed, was blasphemy to a religious authority.



The original statement which spawned this...



what... huh? said:


> I mean... Christ Himself was crucified for blasphemy. You would think it would take you (Christians) less than 2 millennia to learn the lesson from that.


So you guys stop cramming this shit down peoples throats, and stop being so easily offended. Nothing good comes of it. Nothing.


----------



## fried at 420 (Aug 14, 2009)

i shouldent post on this thread as im athiest
sooo sorry for my stupidity towards jesus...


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Aug 14, 2009)

People believe in the Bible??? Wow. You realize it's a work of fiction, right?

Your post was tl;dr... why am I posting here?


----------



## chitownsmoking (Aug 14, 2009)

jesus was crucified for being one cool motha fucka by some haters. jesus was the kinda cat you go to the club with buy out the bar and he pays the tab, then put one to the sky of some danky


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

The validity of the bible/existence of God have absolutely fuck all to do with this discussion.



You can discuss Battlefield Earth without believing it is TRUE... unless you are John Travolta.


----------



## PVS (Aug 14, 2009)

the _reason_ jesus was crucified was blasphemy.
the official charge before the state however is another matter.

to blaspheme judaism was not a violation of roman law. to avoid causing a 
piss-storm with a generally antisemetic-yet-tolerant state, jesus' declaration
that he was "king of the jews" was exploited as grounds for a charge of high 
treason. 

jerusalem was roman territory and rome could simply carry out a 
punishment which suits those who challenge the throne. since the law
did not recognise 'king' in a strictly spiritual sense, the charge was convenient. 
not only that but rome didnt have to go through the embarrassment of enforcing 
law based upon hebrew scripture. 

its a common practice in law: finding a charge that sticks and doesn't ruffle the wrong feathers.
think back to al capone. jailed for being a sociopathic murderer but on the charge of tax evasion.

if jeruselum truly followed its own law, and were their own executioners, why did they need pilate's
official consent? why even bother to sugar-coating and repackaging it for pilate? the threat of widespread 
civil unreast was quite enough reason to let them have their way. the hebrew clergy had ALL the bargaining leverage in that deal.

pilate simply asked jesus to renounce his self proclaimed kingship, jesus refused, pilate washed his hands, etc etc


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 14, 2009)

chitownsmoking said:


> jesus was crucified for being one cool motha fucka by some haters. jesus was the kinda cat you go to the club with buy out the bar and he pays the tab, then put one to the sky of some danky


Hehe, yeah, Jesus was just a regular guy that knew what was going on. He was considered a conspiracy theorist, blasphemer, traitor etc..just for telling people what was _really_ going on.


----------



## Cap K (Aug 14, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The validity of the bible/existence of God have absolutely fuck all to do with this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> You can discuss Battlefield Earth without believing it is TRUE... unless you are John Travolta.


LMAO! I'm with you on the blasphemy thing too!


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 14, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> Hehe, yeah, Jesus was just a regular guy that knew what was going on. He was considered a conspiracy theorist, blasphemer, traitor etc..just for telling people what was _really_ going on.


The sanhedrin wanted him dead so they accused him of blasphemy. 

The Romans didn't know what to do with him, because as far as they were concerned he had committed no crime, but the sanhedrin incited the crowd, and soon they were all yelling "crucify him!" 

The religious authorities of today would probably do the same thing, because they are more concerned with keeping the power they have, just as the sanhedrin was.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

PVS said:


> the _reason_ jesus was crucified was blasphemy.
> the official charge before the state however is another matter.
> 
> to blaspheme judaism was not a violation of roman law. to avoid causing a
> ...


Because the worst penalty ever set forth on any land was the suffering on the cross, the Jews wanted him crucified. Again, the LOCAL laws were in effect in ALL conquered territories... the reason it had to go through Roman authority, is because ROME was supreme... and, for instance, they could not have a LOCAL tax collector put to death for serving Caesar, ALL punishment and adjudication had to pass through the Roman authority. They RULED a people by allowing them to rule themselves.

It would be, as if in Iraq, we would not allow the ruling government to put to death a person whose crime was being pro-American. Nor would we let UBL pass out of custody. The law of the land was the law of the land... so long as that law did not offend Caesar. For the Jews, this also kept their hands clean, while imposing the ultimate suffering on the blasphemer.

We have, actually, and I will find... the letters between Pilot and Caesar, and Pilot and... shit... his name starts with an H... I am too drunk to look it up... because Jesus was "from" Galilee... he was temporarily turned over to him... and they demonstrate even clearer than the bible, that the charge was blasphemy.

I should have started with those... but I forgot.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> The sanhedrin wanted him dead so they accused him of blasphemy.
> 
> The Romans didn't know what to do with him, because as far as they were concerned he had committed no crime, but the sanhedrin incited the crowd, and soon they were all yelling "crucify him!"
> 
> The religious authorities of today would probably do the same thing, because they are more concerned with keeping the power they have, just as the sanhedrin was.


Ding ding... winna winna chicken dinnaaaaaaaaa.


Civil unrest was not worth the life of a random Jew who is said to have been fathered by a false God.


So be it.


----------



## PVS (Aug 14, 2009)

the right to decide capital punishment was a matter of state. 
"ius gladii" was not granted by default to local governments. 
very few local rulers _were_ granted that power, but not the jews.

*edit* or else why must the clerics demand jesus' death from pilate? 
if they had the right of the sword then pilate wouldn't need to be involved.
it wasnt the hebrew clerics that desired clean hands, it was rome.

...i mean the guy literally washed his hands. jesus refused to renounce 
his kingship, thus committing a blatant capital crime. pilate had no 
choice at that point. at that point it would be 'for the good of rome'
to execute him or else suffer more such uprisings and new 'kings'.
at that point _everyone_ wanted him dead except arguably pilate
and jesus' followers.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 15, 2009)

Mark 14:



60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 
61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 
63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 
64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. 
65And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. 





Pretty much seals it don't you think? I mean... again... your book. You think it is... inaccurate?


----------



## PVS (Aug 15, 2009)

that was not the death sentence. read forward:



> Mark 15:1 _...And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
> And Pilate asked him, *Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it.* And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate
> asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee._


he's pretty much telling jesus at this point that all he has to do is say "i'm not King of the Jews" and the charge is forfeit. this is the only violation which concerns him because it is a high crime before rome...



> _But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled_


_

...etc etc and barabbus gets set free...




But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the *King of the Jews?*

Click to expand...

not "blasphemer", not "heretic", he sticks to those exact words and mentions NOTHING of hebrew law or scripture.




...So Pilate again asked them, "Then what should I do with the king of the Jews?"

Click to expand...

the true 'trial' for lack of a better word was pilate permitting the guards to take christ to be beaten and crucified.
THAT was the official condemnation, and what doomed jesus. HE had the right of the sword and i believe he made 
it clear that his only concern was high treason, of which he was seemingly wanting to drop if jesus would have just
renounced his throne. he never once mentions heresy or blasphemy, and imho very deliberately._


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 15, 2009)

Show me where the bible says He was convicted of treason... or sedition... 


Because I have shown you in 3 places where it says he was committed and put to death for blasphemy.

Unless of course you think the bible is inaccurate... and your understanding of Roman history is reason enough to discount it, at least this part.


----------



## OregonMeds (Aug 15, 2009)

He was crusified because all throughout time government officials have had it out for pot smoking pacifists.


----------



## PVS (Aug 16, 2009)

ok so you're just going to ignore the crux of my argument. i mean, you posted scripture 
that you call 'proof' that you're right (and it proves nothing), i posted scripture which i felt 
contradicted it along with roman law regarding capital punishment...and you just ignored 
completely. i mean, you didnt challenge the point, you just carried on like i said nothing.

...so i guess that means we're done here and you're the winner. congratulations.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Do you remember the crux of mine? The one that plainly stated upset you?



what... huh? said:


> No he wasn't. I hate arguing religion with someone who doesn't even know theirs.


This is your religion. Not Roman history. Your religion spells out, in very plain English why Jesus was crucified. I am willing to accept your argument, and address it in full, and if I am wrong will gladly admit it... but you must first admit that you believe that you, not the bible, are correct on this matter.


----------



## PVS (Aug 16, 2009)

you did not present fact. you just parroted the notion that your own interpretation of circumstances reflects the legal charge for which jesus was crucified.
other than that you've managed to completely dodge the rebuttal and once again have successfully wasted my time. 

congratulations again, champ


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

I presented the word of God.

You presented presumption.


Show me the word of God that says he was not put to death for blasphemy. The bible SAYS He was put to death for blasphemy. You keep quoting the "King of the Jews" line IMPLYING it was offensive to caesar because of the title of King, and not that He was a God man... like Caesar, but with direct lineage.

I have made my case. You see what you want to see.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

So I take by your lack of reply you concede. Your bible flat out says he was put to death for blasphemy, and all the interpretation of what the term "King of the Jews" meant to a guy who died a couple thousand years ago does not change what the bible DOES say.

I know your religion better than you.

You are a bad Christian.


----------



## PVS (Aug 17, 2009)

you will not waste any more of my time with your artful dodging.
better to be a 'bad christian' than some taunting internet trolltard.
i think jesus would forgive me first. later champ.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

Don't get all pissy at me because you want to make up what is clearly written. I asked very clear, inoffensive questions... and made a very clear, inoffensive argument. The closest thing to impolite was to suggest that you see what you want to see instead of what is written.


You are relying on your interpretation of His title to Pilate and Caesar. If you told Caesar that you were the son of the One true God, which implies he is not a God, he would have you... well... crucified. You have been trying to duck the argument since you waged it. You attempted to correct me, then took shots and bowed out... twice now... and you call ME a troll? 

Know what you are talking about before you correct someone. At BEST it is left to interpretation, and not worthy of correction... and in reality I am right... and you know it.


----------



## KaleoXxX (Aug 17, 2009)

blasphmey, treason, same word almost, except one has religious connotations and the other political. the argument is mute and theres no need to preach scripture or get into debate. i am agnostic/Buddhist so i dont believe anything in the bible, its just a work of fiction that has been updated and censored over the years.

took your head out of the urinal what... huh?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

It is a discussion about the crucifixion... from a religious perspective... and what lessons could be learned from it. The bible is the ONLY source of truth... in this debate. 

If I introduced a book which contradicted what the bible clearly states... do you suppose that would be acceptable? If it is ambiguous sure.

64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. 

It isn't ambiguous. 


The irony of Jesus being crucified through religious persecution, and His followers being perpetrators of the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, and countless wars and conquests is not a moot point. Imposing your beliefs on others is obnoxious... especially when they are poorly researched... and most especially delivered at the end of a sword. 


That is really the issue... the guys who will shake that bible at you having never read the damned thing. It is the single most popular book ever written, sold more copies than any other book in history... 

How many of them do you think get read like any other book? 

Not many... they pick and choose the lines their pastor/vicor/priest tells them to look at, and preach on. The ONLY source of what they dedicate their lives to, and put ultimate faith in... unread. They get half way through the begatting of Gen, and start moving to new chapters... then give up. 

It isn't ALL their fault. The churches don't typically recommend seeking answers in the book. They like to read pieces and interpret it for you. One day I will dedicate the time to a thread about Paul, and why the church works the way it does. I will absolutely demonstrate the church does not ask you to follow Jesus, they ask you to follow the church. Why the books that were canonized were, and weren't weren't.

We are talking about 80% of this country... 256,000,000 people... walking around, dedicating their lives to a book the overwhelming majority don't read. It is astounding.


Even urinal cakes loose their flavor eventually.


----------



## KaleoXxX (Aug 17, 2009)

i think harry potter and the sorcerers stone out sold the bible one year

and i belive the original argument was a debate over the words describing the reason for Jesus's crucifixion, blasphemy, or treason, which is not worth arguing. anyone who has payed attention in history class or has read over the thread "religion dose more harm than good" knows that the church(you dont specify which church your talking about, ill assume catholic/christian as christ is the subject matter) is corrupt and has done alot of awful things. they have lost the followers who have opened their eyes and dont want to be told how to live their lives. not to mention pedophile priests and a nazi pope


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

The original debate was about the reason Jesus was crucified...


----------



## KaleoXxX (Aug 17, 2009)

original sin right?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

That was His reason. The reason He was tortured and put to death was for blasphemy... which is why it is silly to put people to death for blasphemy in His name. Religious persecution is bad mkay.

Christians tend to be a little imposing with their beliefs... as do athiests who are sick of it.

I am neither.


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 18, 2009)

Jesus NEVER existed.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 19, 2009)

It is incredibly unlikely that Jesus didn't exist. There are texts from all over the world from that time period which mention this miraculous "healer" and mention him by name... 

Whether or not he was the son of God, or David Koresh is arguable... but it is pretty clear he existed. Pontius Pilate too...


----------



## PVS (Aug 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I asked very clear, inoffensive questions... and made a very clear, inoffensive argument. The closest thing to impolite was to suggest that you see what you want to see instead of what is written.





what... huh? said:


> I know your religion better than you.
> 
> You are a bad Christian.


is that hypocrisy or just straight up idiocy?

you're an antagonist who needs to feel right and win on the internet, even if you claim is completely baseless. you have continuously behaved in an insulting manner and deny it. you claim to have refuted evidence yet you simply ignored it.

then the mother of all facepalms, you can't seem to grasp the difference between:

1 political motive for his execution

...AND...

2 pilate's charge. the charge for which roman law was carried out (roman law being represented directly through pilate's decision) 

...and then go on to call your interpretation "the word of god". nice. 

you did a wonderful job of dodging the factual point that jeruselum did NOT have the right of the sword and thus their own charges meant NOTHING to roman law. if a terrirory did not have the consent of rome to carry out capital trial and punishment, then those trials/punishments were a matter of state law and state protocol.

*again, the jews had no right to charge jesus of a capital crime.
blasphemy to judaism was not a capital crime and christ was executed by rome (to keep the peace) under the charge of high treason*


so come up with another worthless post to dissuade me. then you can give yourself another pat on the back and victory speech while declaring your intellectual superiority in front of an audience of...4.


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 20, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It is incredibly unlikely that Jesus didn't exist. There are texts from all over the world from that time period which mention this miraculous "healer" and mention him by name...
> 
> Whether or not he was the son of God, or David Koresh is arguable... but it is pretty clear he existed. Pontius Pilate too...


No there isn't.

Cite them.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 21, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> No there isn't.
> 
> Cite them.


 
is your google search button broken?

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq12.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 22, 2009)

fish601 said:


> is your google search button broken?
> 
> http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
> 
> ...


You failed.

You have 4 links about the accuracy of the Bible and a Wiki link. If you type in the "authors" name and put fraud next to it you will see a volume of links that talk about the legitimacy of these texts. 

Cite _*IRREFUTABLE*_ HISTORICAL documents that talk about Jesus as a real person. It is not my job to debunk them. Do a little research to fact check YOUR sources before you try to insult me as to my ability to seek information. 

Here is a link that DEBUNKS all of your Josephus quotes.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
I find this rather insightful. "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than _*one paragraph*_, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In fact, Josephus relates much more about _John the Baptist _than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including _Judas of Galilee_, _Theudas the Magician_, and the unnamed_ 'Egyptian Jew_' messiah.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he *adds nothing* that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already."[/FONT]


Try again. This time try not to insult me.


----------



## poopmaster (Aug 22, 2009)

Pics or he didn't exist (to be crucified).


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> You failed.
> 
> You have 4 links about the accuracy of the Bible and a Wiki link. If you type in the "authors" name and put fraud next to it you will see a volume of links that talk about the legitimacy of these texts.
> 
> ...


 
Try yahoo.com it works pretty good (just incase you didnt know )


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> You failed.
> 
> You have 4 links about the accuracy of the Bible and a Wiki link. If you type in the "authors" name and put fraud next to it you will see a volume of links that talk about the legitimacy of these texts.
> 
> ...


Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than _*one paragraph.*_

i think jesus is the christ i havent written much on him does that mean i dont believe?

***they mention Christ***

**Thallus (c. 50-75AD)*

**Phlegon (First century)*

**** Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)*

**** Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)*

**** Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)*

**** Galen (various writings, c.150)*

**** Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).*


** Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)*

** Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)*

**Lucian (Second century)*

**Numenius (Second cent.)*

**Galerius (Second Cent.)*


we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources





.


----------



## BradyBoe (Aug 22, 2009)

I don't believe that Jesus was a real person. The same story was told about a man named Joseph, and men of all kind's of religion's. Truth is only truth, if you believe in it. That's what makes thing's real. So for the believer's in Jesus, more power to you. If that's what it takes to get that good feeling on the inside and live a good life, I think you should stick with it. But, on the same token. You have to go by historian's and philosopher's and such. For instance, there were no record's of a man named Jesus, in that time period, according to all historian's. Nobody noted of this great man that could, indeed, walk on water, make water into wine, make food. That's all fable and folk-lore as far as modern day historian's are concerned. But, again, it's all belief, and what YOU believe, IS the truth, regardless of what anybody else say's, that's the beauty of life. And there is nobody that can take that from you. Who 'invented', heaven and hell? Are these physical places in some far away galaxy? How come there are only two option's, not heaven, hell and another placed referred to as whatever you would like to call it. Heaven and hell is just a way to seperate good from bad. Evil and good. Heaven and Hell. Whatever it is that you would like to call these places. Regardless, we are all living being's and live to feel good and satisfied and full on the inside. I don't need the bible, the dallah llama or anyone else spiritual to figure out, that our mind's are what control this world that we're in. So we all need to think for the best, for ourselves and other's. Show appreciation for life. Give gratitude. Be Patient and love life, regardless of who think's you are right or wrong about your belief's. Just believe and it will become your reality, guarenteed!!!!!!! thank's if you read this whole thing and sorry to anybody that might of taken offense to this, I was not meaning to offend anybody...take care


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

BradyBoe said:


> I don't believe that Jesus was a real person. The same story was told about a man named Joseph, and men of all kind's of religion's. Truth is only truth, if you believe in it. That's what makes thing's real. So for the believer's in Jesus, more power to you. If that's what it takes to get that good feeling on the inside and live a good life, I think you should stick with it. But, on the same token. You have to go by historian's and philosopher's and such. For instance, there were no record's of a man named Jesus, in that time period, according to all historian's. Nobody noted of this great man that could, indeed, walk on water, make water into wine, make food. That's all fable and folk-lore as far as modern day historian's are concerned. But, again, it's all belief, and what YOU believe, IS the truth, regardless of what anybody else say's, that's the beauty of life. And there is nobody that can take that from you. Who 'invented', heaven and hell? Are these physical places in some far away galaxy? How come there are only two option's, not heaven, hell and another placed referred to as whatever you would like to call it. Heaven and hell is just a way to seperate good from bad. Evil and good. Heaven and Hell. Whatever it is that you would like to call these places. Regardless, we are all living being's and live to feel good and satisfied and full on the inside. I don't need the bible, the dallah llama or anyone else spiritual to figure out, that our mind's are what control this world that we're in. So we all need to think for the best, for ourselves and other's. Show appreciation for life. Give gratitude. Be Patient and love life, regardless of who think's you are right or wrong about your belief's. Just believe and it will become your reality, guarenteed!!!!!!! thank's if you read this whole thing and sorry to anybody that might of taken offense to this, I was not meaning to offend anybody...take care


 
There are lots of historical documents about jesus


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than _*one paragraph.*_
> 
> i think jesus is the christ i havent written much on him does that mean i dont believe?
> 
> ...


You are ridiculous. 

*You* could write a bible about Jesus' life but it would be based 100% anecdotal evidence (just like ALL of the "sources" that you cited). 

*EVERY SINGLE WRITING THAT YOU HAVE CITED WAS WRITTEN POSTHUMOUSLY.* The closest of which you have cited 20 - 45 years *AFTER* Jesus' death and the furthest is 200 years _*AFTER*_ his death. 

You are talking about someone that was parading around as the son of GOD, doing miracles, healing people; yet we have not one painting of him, not one sculpture, not one written first-hand account from someone who was alive during Jesus' time on earth (*you would think witnessing the son of GOD would inspire A LOT of people*). It is just ludicrous that 1979 years after his "death" you can parade around and trumpet the life of a man (and the religion that is based on his "life") that we know nothing about. There is only but one reasonable explanation for this. Jesus never existed. 

The Story of Jesus _is_ an Astrological Allegory _for_ the Sun passing through the Zodiac each year

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bibleastrology.html

In a brief 5 minute skimming; that link accurately and concisely flips your whole belief system upside-down. 

Please save yourself from your Google and Yahoo fact finding missions. Repetitions of the same lies do not make them truth. Ironically, Yahoo makes you look like a yahoo. ​


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> You are ridiculous.
> 
> *You* could write a bible about Jesus' life but it would be based 100% anecdotal evidence (just like ALL of the "sources" that you cited).
> 
> ...


 
one thing for sure is Jesus was a real person. 


if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, _Jesus: An Historian's Review_,

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the _Annals _and the _Histories_. The _Annals_ covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while _Histories_ proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).
Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:
_"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. *Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate,* procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."_ (Annals XV, 44)1.​


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> one thing for sure is Jesus was a real person.
> 
> 
> if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, _Jesus: An Historian's Review_,
> ...


Greatest fraud in history. Again you cite a source that was written posthumously.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the _Annals_ he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race._[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight." 
_
&#8211; Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44): [/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of _Jews_, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' &#8211; being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as _Jews_ meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in* general attacks upon the Jews. *[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."[/FONT]
_ [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
&#8211; Edward Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_)[/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a *capitation tax levied on the Jews *and it was the Jews &#8211; _throughout the empire_ &#8211; who were required to pay for the city&#8217;s rebuilding &#8211; a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] *Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...*[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus &#8211; not in fact, until it had* appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century,* where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his _Life of St. Martin_ is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire _(we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium &#8211; Anzio &#8211; when the blaze started.) _Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.* [/FONT]


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> Greatest fraud in history. Again you cite a source that was written posthumously.
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the _Annals_ he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote: [/FONT]
> ...


He indicates that Christians in Rome were dying for their faith. probably one reason you dont have alot of people writing bout him.

that statement appears in every known copy of the just thought i would mention that.

ya think if someone forged it they would of put something that made jesus/christians look good?


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> He indicates that Christians in Rome were dying for their faith. probably one reason you dont have alot of people writing bout him.
> 
> that statement appears in every known copy of the just thought i would mention that.
> 
> ya think if someone forged it they would of put something that made jesus/christians look good?


It is a fraud. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

*Authenticity and reliability*

The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in first-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some dispute it.[5] Some supporting authenticity argue it is too critical of Christians to have been added by later Christian scribes.[_citation needed_]
Some who argue against authenticity assert:[6][7]


No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, however the Tacitus text itself demonstrates that it may be a good resource for Christians to refer to since the text derides Christians and Christianity thus proving it to be free of later tampering by Christians.[8] [9]
 

Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea.[10] The Tacitus passage mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator, an error also made in _translations_ of a passage by Josephus.[11] (However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the Latin term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.[12][13] This was made possible when he augmented the role of procurators so that they had magisterial power.[14][15] Tacitus, who rose through the magisterial ranks[16][17] to become consul and then proconsul had a precise knowledge of significance of the terms involved and knew when Judea began to be administered by procurators. It is therefore problematical that he would use "procurator" instead of "prefect" to describe the governor of Judea prior to the changes that _he_ tells us Claudius brought in.
The passage implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome, another argument against veracity, for Tacitus was attempting to lay the blame of the fire on Nero by aspersion.[18]
Another ancient writer, Suetonius, mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire[19].[20]


*Christians or Chrestians?*

 
Detail of the Medicean manuscript showing the word 'Christianos'. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'


The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the _Medicean manuscripts_, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the _second Medicean manuscript_ which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing _Christians_. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the _Christianos_ is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[21].
In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[22] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an _e_), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to _chr*e*stianos_, a Latin word which could be interpreted as _the good_, after the Greek word &#967;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962; (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding &#967;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962;".[23] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[24]


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

which word are we talking about< " his was the sect known as *Christians*. Their founder, one *Christus*, "


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 24, 2009)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

give it a read.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

some people believe hitler didnt exist


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> some people believe hitler didnt exist


You're now comparing Hitler to Jesus? I'll continue to play along.

We have all the evidence that we do not have with Jesus - videos, photographs, first-hand written accounts, minutes of meetings, sculptures, paintings, prison records, manuscripts, letters, daily schedules, property owned, legal marriage, the list goes on and on. All of which were created during his lifetime. 

I can see where there may be doubt that Hitler existed if all we had was a brief (single paragraph) second hand account from 30 years after his death that had since been proven adulterated and other stories written centuries later like your character.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> You're now comparing Hitler to Jesus? I'll continue to play along.
> 
> We have all the evidence that we do not have with Jesus - videos, photographs, first-hand written accounts, minutes of meetings, sculptures, paintings, prison records, manuscripts, letters, daily schedules, property owned, legal marriage, the list goes on and on. All of which were created during his lifetime.
> 
> I can see where there may be doubt that Hitler existed if all we had was a brief (single paragraph) second hand account from 30 years after his death that had since been proven adulterated and other stories written centuries later like your character.


right with all that evidence we have on hitler some people still do not believe
get my point? bah i will tell you anyways
if we had the same info on jesus i am sure you would still deny him.

for the time period that jesus lived we have alot of info on him, what like 95% of the people couldnt read, noone doubted the miracls he did and who he claimed to be, so why would people feel the need to write about him, everyone knew.

also christians were being killed for their faith so you wouldnt see me writting about him


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> right with all that evidence we have on hitler some people still do not believe
> get my point? bah i will tell you anyways
> if we had the same info on jesus i am sure you would still deny him.
> 
> ...


NO - If you had any of that evidence I would believe. The fact is there is NO evidence that the son of god EVER existed outside of the bible and other SHORT works that were ALL written posthumously.

The son of god comes (the most important / significant person EVER) and there is NO evidence of his 30 years on earth. If there was a guy roaming the earth making miracles - that 5% that could read and write would have followed him and cataloged EVERYTHING he did; just like any top journalist would do today. 

If I truly believed that I witnessed the son of god and followed his message; I would be 100% CONTENT dying for my beliefs because I would KNOW that I would be going to a better place. Sounds like you don't have much faith after all.


----------



## Gunch (Aug 26, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> People believe in the Bible??? Wow. You realize it's a work of fiction, right?
> 
> Your post was tl;dr... why am I posting here?


Bible is a book of symbols, and not history... most believers take it as history, but its not...
one must understand the symbols to be able to understand the message...


----------



## fish601 (Aug 26, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> NO - If you had any of that evidence I would believe. The fact is there is NO evidence that the son of god EVER existed outside of the bible and other SHORT works that were ALL written posthumously.
> 
> The son of god comes (the most important / significant person EVER) and there is NO evidence of his 30 years on earth. If there was a guy roaming the earth making miracles - that 5% that could read and write would have followed him and cataloged EVERYTHING he did; just like any top journalist would do today.
> 
> If I truly believed that I witnessed the son of god and followed his message; I would be 100% CONTENT dying for my beliefs because I would KNOW that I would be going to a better place. Sounds like you don't have much faith after all.


There is alot of evidence, but if you have looked into it and still dont believe then i guess you can be wrong.

If they were shooting people in the head that confessed jesus would you run around confessing jesus? even if they were 100% sure that didnt make them forget about common sence


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> There is alot of evidence, but if you have looked into it and still dont believe then i guess you can be wrong.
> 
> If they were shooting people in the head that confessed jesus would you run around confessing jesus? even if they were 100% sure that didnt make them forget about common sence


No, don't mince words. THERE IS NO (ZERO, ZILTCH, NADDA, NIL) EVIDENCE. 

If I met Jesus and believed everything he said and hence believed in God, I would have no problem being killed and spending the rest of eternity in heaven. Sounds like you do not have too much confidence in your faith. Hypocrisy is a very Christian thing (I believe in this, so should you; but actually I don't believe in it enough to die for it).


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

tnrtinr said:


> No, don't mince words. THERE IS NO (ZERO, ZILTCH, NADDA, NIL) EVIDENCE.
> 
> If I met Jesus and believed everything he said and hence believed in God, I would have no problem being killed and spending the rest of eternity in heaven. Sounds like you do not have too much confidence in your faith. Hypocrisy is a very Christian thing (I believe in this, so should you; but actually I don't believe in it enough to die for it).


lol, wow, no evidence ok sure and umm how do you know?

lol again, i believe in god but if they were killing people for it i would not go stand in the line. i would hide and secretly tell people the truth.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 28, 2009)

PVS said:


> is that hypocrisy or just straight up idiocy?
> 
> you're an antagonist who needs to feel right and win on the internet, even if you claim is completely baseless. you have continuously behaved in an insulting manner and deny it. you claim to have refuted evidence yet you simply ignored it.


I do not "need to feel right", I simply enjoy it when I am. You don't know me. I always concede when I am wrong. Happens quite a bit. I haven't ignored anything. 



PVS said:


> then the mother of all facepalms, you can't seem to grasp the difference between:
> 
> 1 political motive for his execution
> 
> ...


I said reason. As in basis of cause. Your argument is, and has been, that the technicality which you presume was motivated for one reason over another with 0 evidence to support, is the REASON he was put to death. Not only is your position completely unsupportable, it is fundamentally flawed. 

You do not know what being the son of the One TRUE God meant to Caesar or Pilate. If you stood before Caesar and said I am the living Son of the One TRUE God, and I will take my seat at the right hand of power when I die... he would put that to the test.



PVS said:


> ...and then go on to call your interpretation "the word of god". nice.


It isn't an interpretation. 
*
Mark 14:64 - Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.*

You are the one attempting to interpret the bible. I find it quite clear without need of interpretation. Every reference in the bible to his death supports this reason. NONE support yours... which is why you don't actually KNOW the charge of the Romans for which he was executed.



PVS said:


> you did a wonderful job of dodging the factual point that jeruselum did NOT have the right of the sword and thus their own charges meant NOTHING to roman law. if a terrirory did not have the consent of rome to carry out capital trial and punishment, then those trials/punishments were a matter of state law and state protocol.


Consent. Yes. Say it with me. Consent.



PVS said:


> *again, the jews had no right to charge jesus of a capital crime.
> blasphemy to judaism was not a capital crime and christ was executed by rome (to keep the peace) under the charge of high treason*


They did bring him forward with charges. Several. Nowhere does any literature say high treason.



PVS said:


> so come up with another worthless post to dissuade me. then you can give yourself another pat on the back and victory speech while declaring your intellectual superiority in front of an audience of...4.


I don't want to come up with another one... I want to reiterate the same one.

Why do you assume his offense to Caesar was not that he was (supposedly) claiming to be the Son of the One true God? Why did Pilate ask so many questions about his blasphemy? About his being the Son of the Jewish God? Why did he ask these questions if blasphemy was not against Roman law? BECAUSE CAESAR IS THE ONLY GOD MAN ALLOWED.

Again... even if you ignore the bible... which Christians are want to do... the implication is that his faith was still the REASON the Romans put him to death.


----------



## tnrtinr (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> lol, wow, no evidence ok sure and umm how do you know?


I have heard of blind faith; but you are just blind.


----------

