PDA

View Full Version : religion : the grate debate



flappo
04-04-2005, 01:04 PM
is it a load of bollox

or is it a load of crap

you tell me ?

flappo
04-04-2005, 01:06 PM
no , all jokes aside

i want to know how you feel aboot religion and if you can prove to me jesus ever existed

i will give $50 and my mod password to the first person to out-argue me

:D

stilleddiesangel
04-04-2005, 01:07 PM
Fuck that.. I just want your babies!!! :D

flappo
04-04-2005, 01:08 PM
i voted flappo is a cunt

:)

oops

flappo
04-04-2005, 01:13 PM
no , back to being serious ( for a micro second ) there it's gone

was jesus a jew or was he a paki ?

cos in all those pictures he sure has a nice suntan

flappo
04-04-2005, 01:17 PM
was he a junkie ?

all those mushrooms they mention in the bible , after all

vanzilla
04-04-2005, 01:44 PM
You won't find any argument's from me regarding the credibility of religion. I'm on the same page as you flapps...

Now Warham on the other hand - he'd be able to give you a good debate.

DR CHIP
04-04-2005, 01:45 PM
If you can prove your faith it is knowledge not faith

flappo
04-04-2005, 01:52 PM
ok , where do i send the fifty bucks ?

only joshing

i hear a lot aboot this whorem twat , i know the star had a run in with the cunt , maybe i should own his faggoty ass ?

let's see if he has the balls / nous to take me on

here i am

ready and faakin waiting !

Hardrock69
04-04-2005, 01:59 PM
There is no proof that Jesus ever existed.

The New Testament does not contain a single word that was written during Jesus's lifetime, or was written by anyone who ever saw or heard him in the flesh. The earliest Gospels in the NT were written after 60 C.E. (several decades after the supposed crusifixion).

Outside of the Bible, there are no writings by ANYONE whoever saw or heard Jesus directly. No first-hand accounts. Period.

If you were asked in a court of law to prove the existence of Jesus, you would do just as well trying to prove the existence of Santa Clause.

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:03 PM
make that man a mod !

it's not like there's any hard evidence either

no coinage , paper work ( papyrus can and does last thousands of years ) , photographs even ;)

just word of fucking mouth

you ever played chinese whispers ?

imagine playing it for 400 years , thats how long it took them from the supposed date of JC's birth to come up with this load of old bollox

you can make up a LOT of shit in FOUR HUNDRED YEARS

thats longer than america's been a constitution fer chrissakes !

Matt White
04-04-2005, 02:09 PM
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!

DR CHIP
04-04-2005, 02:13 PM
Quite untrue about no writings other than the NT talking about Jesus...Tertius and Josephus talk openly about Jesus in their HISTORICAL writings (by the way one was a Roman historian and one was a Jewish historian)...

No real historian doubts whether Jesus lived...the question to ask is who was he....

WACF
04-04-2005, 02:16 PM
The Dead Sea Scrolls talk of Jesus...

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Matt White
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!

i'll ignore the next post cos i just got owned

DAMN !

:D

nice pix tho!

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by DR CHIP
Quite untrue about no writings other than the NT talking about Jesus...Tertius and Josephus talk openly about Jesus in their HISTORICAL writings (by the way one was a Roman historian and one was a Jewish historian)...

No real historian doubts whether Jesus lived...the question to ask is who was he....

hmm , ok , you got me there , mainly as i'm too drunk to use google at the mo' , ok , so IF jc existed , what did he do ?

DR CHIP
04-04-2005, 02:19 PM
Just for SOME history....and I am NOT trying to prove God to anyone, just disagreeing about the supposed historical silence about Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."


Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] . . . Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."


Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)



Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]


Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.


Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search sould be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."



Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.



The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, `He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]


Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the comtempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."



Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:20 PM
they say he was the son of a carpenter

hmm , so i you can summise from that woodworking was a big thing in the christ household

maybe jesus aka john jr made all the furniture in the house

which begs the question

who was jesus' dad ?

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:23 PM
history is crap , it's written by those who dominate a previous culture , vis a vis greeks into romans and so many after that it's boring

the fact is , there is NO physical evidence jesus christ ever existed is there ?

we can say leonardo da vinci existed , by looking at his works

but jesus ?

NO

DR CHIP
04-04-2005, 02:32 PM
How do you know Da Vinci did those works? Were you there? That argument is weak in my opinion...there is enough historical evedence to conclude Jesus lived.

Christ existed as a human...I really believe most true historians will agree with that, but who he was and what he did will be debated long after we die...

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:34 PM
personally i think jesus was the son of a magician , died probably 1700 years ago or so , threw a few balls into the air and hoped for the best

much like us all

VIVA BOLLOX !

flappo
04-04-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by DR CHIP
How do you know Da Vinci did those works? Were you there? That argument is weak in my opinion...there is enough historical evedence to conclude Jesus lived.

Christ existed as a human...I really believe most true historians will agree with that, but who he was and what he did will be debated long after we die...

actually , charlton heston said so , or was that mickey angelo ?

fuck knows , all these dago queers seem the same to me

i will never die

everyone in the future will fart and say oh jesus , i just did a flappo

Hardrock69
04-04-2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by DR CHIP
Quite untrue about no writings other than the NT talking about Jesus...Tertius and Josephus talk openly about Jesus in their HISTORICAL writings (by the way one was a Roman historian and one was a Jewish historian)...

No real historian doubts whether Jesus lived...the question to ask is who was he....

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book got written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.


OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

Doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude and Revelation, got raised even in antiquity by Origen and Eusebius. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim it as the disciple James from the Gospels, but there occurs several James mentioned in the gospels. There also exists the possibility that it comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]

Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have got written more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]


NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of the post writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.



Ok guys...that was fairly lengthy, but only a small part of the page I got it from.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


This is stuff I have known for over 25 years.

I am waiting for someone to prove to me he actually existed.
Just because someone says he did is not proof.

And that is all there is....HEARSAY

Have a nice day, peeps.

Warham
04-04-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by vanzilla
You won't find any argument's from me regarding the credibility of religion. I'm on the same page as you flapps...

Now Warham on the other hand - he'd be able to give you a good debate.

LMAO!

Why would I give him a good debate compared to any of the other fine posters here?

I do appreciate those kind words though, Van.

:D

Reverberator
04-04-2005, 06:23 PM
JESUS !!!

The standard exclamation (by larvelly ladies) as to the Enormous size of D M Revvys wonderous coch .

That is my religion .

Such it and see .

vanzilla
04-04-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Warham
LMAO!

Why would I give him a good debate compared to any of the other fine posters here?

I do appreciate those kind words though, Van.

:D

Thanks man. Even though you and I disagree on certain things, religion being one of them, I think you often times state your cases very well. That's all. Wasn't a slam; I hope you didn't take that way. I don't think you did.:confused:

kentuckyklira
04-04-2005, 06:33 PM
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary:
Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me:
"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John:
"If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me:
"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John:
"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me:
"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary:
"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me:
"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John:
"Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me:
"Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary:
"Oh yes, all the time..."
Me:
"And has He given you a million dollars?"
John:
"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me:
"So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary:
"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me:
"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John:
"My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me:
"Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John:
"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me:
"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary:
"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me:
"What's that got to do with Hank?"
John:
"Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me:
"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John:
"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."
Me:
"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary:
"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me:
"Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John:
"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me:
"Who's Karl?"
Mary:
"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me:
"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John:
"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl

1: Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2: Use alcohol in moderation.
3: Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4: Eat right.
5: Hank dictated this list Himself.
6: The moon is made of green cheese.
7: Everything Hank says is right.
8: Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9: Don't use alcohol.
10: Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11: Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me:
"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary:
"Hank didn't have any paper."
Me:
"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John:
"Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me:
"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary:
"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me:
"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary:
"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me:
"How do you figure that?"
Mary:
"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me:
"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John:
"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me:
"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John:
"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me:
"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary:
"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me:
"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John:
"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me:
"We do?"
Mary:
"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me:
"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John:
"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me:
"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary:
She blushes.
John:
"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me:
"What if I don't have a bun?"
John:
"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me:
"No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary:
She looks positively stricken.
John:
He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me:
"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary:
Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John:
"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me:
"It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary:
She faints.
John:
He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

Warham
04-04-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by vanzilla
Thanks man. Even though you and I disagree on certain things, religion being one of them, I think you often times state your cases very well. That's all. Wasn't a slam; I hope you didn't take that way. I don't think you did.:confused:

Nope, not at all. I took it as a compliment.

I just laughed about it, that's all.

:D

franksters
04-04-2005, 06:50 PM
To Me flappo the non-believer actually have probably more faith than a believer simply because they never ask them selves the ultimate question '' is there a god'' they seem to be absolutly convince that there is no god or anything like that .

So technically they are the true believer...

Btw there is already a thread Name ''IS THERE A GOD''

actually in this forum...

feel free to answer!

Hardrock69
04-04-2005, 08:12 PM
I believe in God, but God is not and never was a human being.

Big Troubles
04-04-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
I believe in God, but God is not and never was a human being.

To know what God was not, is basically stating you know what he/she is.

So. What is God?

I think "God" is an escape from facing a certain truth. You die and that's the END. People don't like to think "that's it", so instead they make up wonderful fairy tales like Heavan and Hell to live and judge life and morals by. Without the fear of the unknown, the world would be, and is- to some extent "chaotic".

Id rather live my entire life not thinking about "afterwards". I think its a waste of time to think about where you might go after you die.

Im my own God.

"God is a grown ups invisible friend".

:D Just my opinion.

Diddle Doe
04-04-2005, 09:50 PM
Part of the gospels were written in Aramaic, and part in Hebrew, thus gospels 1 and 2...giving the two versions. Also some were written in Greek...But Narrators kept the knowledge and handed it down orally through the generations. (very metticously). But the Dead Sea scrolls, etc. were proof. Christians had to hide in the Catacombs for fear for their lives and teach the gospel. Some of the apostles met grave ends...

GAR
04-04-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by flappo
personally i think jesus was the son of a magician , died probably 1700 years ago or so , threw a few balls into the air and hoped for the best

much like us all

VIVA BOLLOX !

If he didn't get his ass up after 3 days dead, we wouldn't be discussing the issue. However, over 300 documented eyewitness accounts other than the bible exist which in a court of law would prove his existence.

I just want to know where the Tree of Death is located for something delicious to crow about, because if the Tree of Life is where all the sin started and made everything bad then the Bad must be the Good Fruit and I fuckin want somea that shit there..

GAR
04-04-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Diddle Doe
Part of the gospels were written in Aramaic, and part in Hebrew, thus gospels 1 and 2...giving the two versions. Also some were written in Greek

How about this: somebody pray to God and tell him we now have wireless internet access he can use.

He could just email the time and the place to Beam Up or Beam Down.

GAR
04-04-2005, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Big Troubles
To know what God was not, is basically stating you know what he/she is.

So. What is God? "God is a grown ups invisible friend".

:D Just my opinion.

Can your God kick God's ass in a barfight? If so, I'll sign up for attendance when your services are held.

Big Troubles
04-04-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by GAR
Can your God kick God's ass in a barfight? If so, I'll sign up for attendance when your services are held.

I don't have a God. But if I did yes. Yes he would. :D Services? I hope it's a nice one for me. Of course I wont know. I'll be busy being eaten by worms. :eek:

Big Troubles
04-04-2005, 10:35 PM
.

Big Troubles
04-04-2005, 10:44 PM
but in all seriousness, I cant stand the idea of having to turn to anything that isn't visible or have a substance to help me solve personal problems or when making a difficult decision, needing someone or something to fix it for me. i dunno. Im not worried about being "judged" as people would say. I worry about the here and now and use my brain to solve my shit.

Maybe someday there will be a light. ;) but until then-

blonddgirl777
04-05-2005, 12:03 AM
You said it, "Big Troubles"...

I like to say that I am fully responsible for my acts and I also have a problem with Catholic religion that states the fact that everything good comes from God and all the evil comes from men (and women) on this hearth.

And don't get me started with the "original sin", "Adam & Eve" thing etc...

Aaaarrr... I should get off this thread!

Matt White
04-05-2005, 12:18 AM
INSTANT KARMAS gonna get you! Knock you right in the 'ead!

Rikk
04-05-2005, 12:46 AM
I believe in ALAN THE PANTHER.

vanzilla
04-05-2005, 12:53 AM
ALAN is the only way. Non-believers will find themselves living an eternity of obesity in Fife, Alabama.

Rikk
04-05-2005, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by vanzilla
ALAN is the only way. Non-believers will find themselves living an eternity of obesity in Fife, Alabama.

Indeed.

Grab it, my son. Grab it like there's no tomorrow.

flappo
04-05-2005, 05:50 AM
all praise allan !

allan be praised !!!!

Warham
04-05-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Diddle Doe
Part of the gospels were written in Aramaic, and part in Hebrew, thus gospels 1 and 2...giving the two versions. Also some were written in Greek...But Narrators kept the knowledge and handed it down orally through the generations. (very metticously). But the Dead Sea scrolls, etc. were proof. Christians had to hide in the Catacombs for fear for their lives and teach the gospel. Some of the apostles met grave ends...

According to legend, 11 of the 12 were martyrs, so that 'some' was most. Actually, even John was supposedly dropped into boiling oil but miraculously survived.

flappo
04-05-2005, 08:07 AM
who cares ?

fuck religion , it's boring

look at this !

Rikk
04-05-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by flappo
who cares ?

fuck religion , it's boring

look at this !

Indeed. I could stare at that much longer than I would stare at a sermon.

Praise ALAN!

Golden AWe
04-05-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by GAR
If he didn't get his ass up after 3 days dead, we wouldn't be discussing the issue. However, over 300 documented eyewitness accounts other than the bible exist which in a court of law would prove his existence.

I just want to know where the Tree of Death is located for something delicious to crow about, because if the Tree of Life is where all the sin started and made everything bad then the Bad must be the Good Fruit and I fuckin want somea that shit there..

Nowaydays some of the current tour guides around the area of Jerusalem tell stories that Jesus was not kept on the cross as long as they usually do, in other words he was still alive when they took him down. The size of the stone on the door of his grave also varies in many stories, in other words it would have been small enough for a man to move.

flappo
04-05-2005, 10:56 AM
no porn , we're british !

Golden AWe
04-05-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by flappo
no porn , we're british !

is that camilla?

Hardrock69
04-05-2005, 02:28 PM
Wow....sure looks like her....though I doubt her body is that good....

Whoever she is, I will kneel down and worship at her 'shrine' any day!!!
:D

Hardrock69
04-05-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Big Troubles
To know what God was not, is basically stating you know what he/she is.

So. What is God?

I think "God" is an escape from facing a certain truth. You die and that's the END. People don't like to think "that's it", so instead they make up wonderful fairy tales like Heavan and Hell to live and judge life and morals by. Without the fear of the unknown, the world would be, and is- to some extent "chaotic".

Id rather live my entire life not thinking about "afterwards". I think its a waste of time to think about where you might go after you die.

Im my own God.

"God is a grown ups invisible friend".

:D Just my opinion.

God is nothing physical, I will put it that way.

You have so many people out there who pray to JEEZUSSS-AH! and turn right around and claim that God is 'perfect'.

However everything that is physical is "flawed & imperfect" (in the words of Nomad)

http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/2694TOS_S2D1-1.jpg

ALL physical things break down sooner or later. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Humans included.

Therefore, God never was, is not, and never can be a human (according to the Christian's own belief system) if He/She/It is truly 'perfect'.

Golden AWe
04-05-2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
God is nothing physical, I will put it that way.

You have so many people out there who pray to JEEZUSSS-AH! and turn right around and claim that God is 'perfect'.


but even if God's not physical, god is supposed to be PERFECT.

now there's a thing to think about: everybody's opinion on what is perfect is different...how can god be perfect then?

Warham
04-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
God is nothing physical, I will put it that way.

You have so many people out there who pray to JEEZUSSS-AH! and turn right around and claim that God is 'perfect'.

However everything that is physical is "flawed & imperfect" (in the words of Nomad)

http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/2694TOS_S2D1-1.jpg

ALL physical things break down sooner or later. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Humans included.

Therefore, God never was, is not, and never can be a human (according to the Christian's own belief system) if He/She/It is truly 'perfect'.

Actually, when God created Adam in Genesis, he created him so that he would never die, basically immortal, so hench there was going to be no 'breaking down'. The 'breaking down' only began after the incident with ye ole serpent.

And breaking down does not imply imperfection anyway. God himself decides what perfection is, not the 'wisdom' of man.

GAR
04-05-2005, 03:42 PM
God makes up his own rules as he goes along, so even an understanding of what "perfect" is now can change later.

Either one has faith or does not, that's different than belief AND religion. Like, I believe I'll have a ham sandwich, but if I did that religiously it would be pretty boring even though I have faith in the taste of a nice slice of ham n cheese tasting like ham n cheese.

Rikk
04-05-2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Big Troubles
To know what God was not, is basically stating you know what he/she is.

So. What is God?

I think "God" is an escape from facing a certain truth. You die and that's the END. People don't like to think "that's it", so instead they make up wonderful fairy tales like Heavan and Hell to live and judge life and morals by. Without the fear of the unknown, the world would be, and is- to some extent "chaotic".

Id rather live my entire life not thinking about "afterwards". I think its a waste of time to think about where you might go after you die.

Im my own God.

"God is a grown ups invisible friend".

Bingo.

Warham
04-05-2005, 03:50 PM
God is hardwired into the human psyche, by design.

That is why people are curious and interested in the divine and the 'other side'.

Pope Must Die
04-06-2005, 03:06 AM
Jesus wouldn't be very happy with the crass commercialisation of his humble teachings by the corrupt catholic church