Creationism

[Erik]

Yeah, the Romans took great care to preserve all historical records of Jerusalem when they smashed it up and were particularly fastidious about making sure records of a lowly preacher were kept.

Great stuff lads.

Well given that they meticulously kept records of crucifixions, it seems strange that the most important of all - that of Jesus - is non-existent, especially when you consider that this was a man who was seen as one of the biggest threats to their Empire that ever existed. Surely they would write of how they had crushed him effortlessly? No?

It also seems strange that despite the fact that they would leave crucified bodies in town squares as a deterrent to others, they happened spare Jesus this final humiliation and leave his body hanging upon the cross...

Great stuff RebelBhoy

 

[Zinc Alloy]

So everywhere the Romans destroyed they wiped out all records as well? Really? They recorded history for themselves, not for the locals.
NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER.
But, if you have faith and believe then good luck to you. Just don't go telling my kids that Cheesus is a proven historical person and confusing faith with evidence.

 

[RebelBhoy]

Where did I say my post was ******ed? I said that the only quotes of yours that weren't answered with anything other than were ******ed.

Sorry, full marks for effort but that's a fail.

right here

PS. Let's be honest, the only quotes that weren't answered with anything other than were answered elsewhere and, I have to say, fairly ******ed.

PS. Love the way you're laughing at me because of your failure to explain what happened to the accounts that were written, and why you believe that poor people should be the only ones to have documented Jesus' life.

I accounted for that perfectly well. Banging on about the same ludicrous point about contemporary evidence doesn't disprove the existence of a man named Jesus. The New Testament as a historical work is testimony to his existence, the Gnostic gospels and the primary texts from where the synoptic gospels are derived is evidence of that. Certainly the scholarly works of Josephus are. Tacitus frames it politically. Mara bar Sarapion references Jesus the man....but to hell with that evidence when you don't get a fisherman to write it down for you.

 

[RebelBhoy]

So everywhere the Romans destroyed they wiped out all records as well? Really? They recorded history for themselves, not for the locals.
NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER.
But, if you have faith and believe then good luck to you. Just don't go telling my kids that Cheesus is a proven historical person and confusing faith with evidence.

Of course you can evidence where I have done that can't you? Its not as though you don't have access to the contemporary works of the last day or so

 

[RebelBhoy]

especially when you consider that this was a man who was seen as one of the biggest threats to their Empire that ever existed.

 

[RebelBhoy]

Well given that they meticulously kept records of crucifixions, it seems strange that the most important of all - that of Jesus - is non-existent,

So you will indulge in the theology of the crucifixion when it suits you?

 

[Erik]

right here





I accounted for that perfectly well. Banging on about the same ludicrous point about contemporary evidence doesn't disprove the existence of a man named Jesus. The New Testament as a historical work is testimony to his existence, the Gnostic gospels and the primary texts from where the synoptic gospels are derived is evidence of that. Certainly the scholarly works of Josephus are. Tacitus frames it politically. Mara bar Sarapion references Jesus the man....but to hell with that evidence when you don't get a fisherman to write it down for you.

First of all Rebel, I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote, though I admit that I now see that it can be interpreted in two ways...
(Call that one a draw)

Secondly, what is it with you, me and fishermen? The first parts of the NT were not written until after his supposed death. Josephus wrote a couple of sentences on how he had heard of Jesus, mentioning him in passing. Tacitus wrote of him 80 years after he died. Mara bar Serapion doesn't even mention Jesus, just a king.

 

[Erik]

The only way in which my comment would be considered worthy of a laugh is if I were the one suggesting Jesus was real and YOU were the one refuting it.

 

[Erik]

So you will indulge in the theology of the crucifixion when it suits you?

 

[MackemsRule]

We laugh at Scientology, those crazy bastards thinking that we were all put here by aliens.
We, in the west, laugh at certain aspects of Islam. Hah when you die you're gonna get all those virgins!
We have laugh at Mormons, the book of Mormon was written by what was quite undeniably ****ing obvious a bull **** Walter Mitty character who just wanted two wives.
We cringe at the mad cults which have intermittently appeared all over the western world in the last 50 years, Japanese people carrying out chemical attacks on the tube, Charlie Manson convincing those girls he was the messiah, The Waco massacre with David Koresh raping kids and convincing all those nut jobs to fight to the death.
We laugh at the Romans, those nut jobs had Gods of War and gods of love making and every ****ing thing, didn't the bunch of lunatics realise there is only one god?

Yet here we are thinking that it is perfectly logical, and worthy of devoting my life to some bloke who fed the 5,000 and maybe walked across water - according to a book full of contradictions and inconsistencies written almost 2,000 years ago by a group of semi literate people who were trying to record a story which had been passed around orally for 150 years previously. We believe our sect of Christianity is completely correct, yet we probably wouldn't have been taught it had Constantinople not converted or that crazy king Henry VIII not got pissed off with his latest wife.

Sit back and use your 'god given' brain to analyze the stupid foundations modern religion is built upon and ask yourself can you truly trust what these self chosen representatives of god are teaching you?

As I said before if there is a higher being then it without doubt has little relation to the millions of religions that have passed their way around humanity.

The problem is they use their GOD given brain, to twist the facts to suit their beliefs.

For ignorant uneducated peoples religion provided a reason for putting up with their miserable lives.
It was used by the Rich and the Church to keep the downtrodden masses just that downtrodden!
In modern times believing in this dross is just incredible.

 

[RebelBhoy]

The first parts of the NT were not written until after his supposed death. Josephus wrote a couple of sentences on how he had heard of Jesus, mentioning him in passing. Tacitus wrote of him 80 years after he died. Mara bar Serapion doesn't even mention Jesus, just a king.

Josephus certainly places the historical figure of jesus, even setting aside the disputed paragraphs. Tacitus was a historian who framed the political scene at the time. He mentioned the early Christians. the followers of Jesus. i don't think he mentioned Jesus specifically. But for there to have been Christians at that time, there must have been a "Christ" figure. Mara bar Serapion was certainly referencing a figure though wasn't he. It is absolutely and certainly an account of a figure in this role.

 

[RebelBhoy]

The only way in which my comment would be considered worthy of a laugh is if I were the one suggesting Jesus was real and YOU were the one refuting it.

In real terms it was like Barcelona fretting about Yeading.

 

[RebelBhoy]

well? My argument was about the historical figure of Jesus. Not how he died. You are prepared to entertain the NT as a primary source for his death, but not his life?

That is quite odd.

 

[RebelBhoy]

<
For ignorant uneducated peoples religion provided a reason for putting up with their miserable lives.

So what makes you so educated on the subject?

 

[Erik]

well? My argument was about the historical figure of Jesus. Not how he died. You are prepared to entertain the NT as a primary source for his death, but not his life?

That is quite odd.

Not at all. My point was that if he existed, he surely 'must' have been crucified, and there is no evidence of this. I didn't say that you necessarily believed this, just that if the evidence you have posited were true, then the events detailed in the Bible about his actions would also be. (Not that he performed miracles, etc, but certainly the locations he visited and that he was crucified).

 

[Erik]

In real terms it was like Barcelona fretting about Yeading.

How so?

*Hayes & Yeading

 

[RebelBhoy]

How so?

*Hayes & Yeading

Both of them...ok. bad example.
Jesus ministry was in a ****ty outpost. they didn't particularly give a ****.

 

[Erik]

Both of them...ok. bad example.
Jesus ministry was in a ****ty outpost. they didn't particularly give a ****.

True, to say he alone was a massive threat is stretching the truth a little, but you cannot deny that his insistence that there was only one God went against their beliefs. As support for him grew, it undermined their authority, especially as ancient empires such as that had their foundations based largely in the faith of their citizens. If any of these individuals or groups should oppose a government that denied them their individual beliefs, especially as that belief gained widespread support, the potential for conflict grows.

 

[Erik]

All based on the assumption, for the sake of argument, that he existed.

 

[RebelBhoy]

Not at all. My point was that if he existed, he surely 'must' have been crucified, and there is no evidence of this. I didn't say that you necessarily believed this, just that if the evidence you have posited were true, then the events detailed in the Bible about his actions would also be. (Not that he performed miracles, etc, but certainly the locations he visited and that he was crucified).

Right, I'll settle and stop being a dick as its getting in the way of my point. I apologise.

The crucifixion isn't important from a historical perspective of the life of Jesus. I have avoided theology in this debate (which makes it weird being called a fundamentalist in the tags...amongst some other untruths) but I kinda have to go there a bit to address this. To make sure the message was uniform, the NT accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus are written from the same viewpoint. There are other accounts that differ hugely.

Historically speaking saying he must have been crucified makes no sense. he may have died of leprosy, he may have been ran over by a ford capri.
The NT accounts, that we have already discussed were written later and in all liklihood from one primary source. That was to get the message straight. The other accounts which appear more viable mention being crucified on a tree, hanged on passover and some other stuff that escapes me (genuinely I can't remember the others). Theologically what is more important is the death and resurrection. in terms of spreading the message, uniformity would appear more important. None of that discounts the existence of the historical figure of Jesus.

You have already shown you don't believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus. I can accept your viewpoint on that, I might disagree on it but that is theology. I just don't see why you would then seek to use the crucifixion account, the biggest miracle/trick of the lot as evidence of his non existence. Either you don't accept the accounts of the miracles, or you do.