Religion......

[D1B]

In a sense you are lesser people. Your belief in the great myth and any profiteer who bleats biblical nonsense in public, causes you to focus resources away from your own or children's welfare.

Really?

I am a lesser person because I hold religion with high value in my life.......

How do I.....'focus resources away from myself and my children?' I think I provide just fine for my family. My girls are 16 and I have their college paid for. I guess I'm a bad father in your book.....

Think of how much better their lives would be if you didn't abuse them by forcing your stupid religion on them?

How many hours have those girls spent in church -hearing the same lame bullshit from a pedophile, or praying or thinking about jesus? Let see, they're 16 years old...

Aside from all the money you gave the church, you, you idiot, so far have forced them to go to church, pray or think about your nonsense for approximately 2500 hours in the last 16 years. That 104 days EACH they didn't study science or math or art. 104 days they didn't play sports, read books, or spend fun time with family. 104 days immersed in the crock of shit dogma of an ignorant and barbaric tribe of sheep fuckers who lived in the asshole of the world.

If they continue to be held captive by your superstitions, you will have stolen years of their lives, just like your father and trembling mother did to you.

Go fuck yourself, Father of the Year.

[MSUDuo]

Really?

I am a lesser person because I hold religion with high value in my life.......

How do I.....'focus resources away from myself and my children?' I think I provide just fine for my family. My girls are 16 and I have their college paid for. I guess I'm a bad father in your book.....

Think of how much better their lives would be if you didn't abuse them by forcing your stupid religion on them?

How many hours have those girls spent in church -hearing the same lame bullshit from a pedophile, or praying or thinking about jesus? Let see, they're 16 years old...

Aside from all the money you gave the church, you, you idiot, so far have forced them to go to church, pray or think about your nonsense for approximately 2500 hours in the last 16 years. That 104 days EACH they didn't study science or math or art. 104 days they didn't play sports, read books, or spend fun time with family. 104 days immersed in the crock of **** dogma of an ignorant and barbaric tribe of sheep **** who lived in the ******* of the world.

If they continue to be held captive by your superstitions, you will have stolen years of their lives, just like your father and trembling mother did to you.

Go **** yourself, Father of the Year.

Holy Toledo Batman...

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Really?

I am a lesser person because I hold religion with high value in my life.......

How do I.....'focus resources away from myself and my children?' I think I provide just fine for my family. My girls are 16 and I have their college paid for. I guess I'm a bad father in your book.....

Think of how much better their lives would be if you didn't abuse them by forcing your stupid religion on them?

How many hours have those girls spent in church -hearing the same lame bullshit from a pedophile, or praying or thinking about jesus? Let see, they're 16 years old...

Aside from all the money you gave the church, you, you idiot, so far have forced them to go to church, pray or think about your nonsense for approximately 2500 hours in the last 16 years. That 104 days EACH they didn't study science or math or art. 104 days they didn't play sports, read books, or spend fun time with family. 104 days immersed in the crock of **** dogma of an ignorant and barbaric tribe of sheep **** who lived in the ******* of the world.

If they continue to be held captive by your superstitions, you will have stolen years of their lives, just like your father and trembling mother did to you.

Go **** yourself, Father of the Year.

Why do you and many others on here go to personal attacks and name calling when someone does not have the same opinion as you?

I like having discussions on a wide range of topics but it seems like it comes down to being called a loser-dumbass or go F myself.

Actually my Christian beliefs have not adversely affected my daughters as you think. One has a 3.998 GPA and the other 3.892; both play VB and track. So I guess that kind of shoots down your theory...

You think religion is fantasy and superstitition.....well, that is fine..that is your opinion. But why go into a name calling tirade when someone posts a positive view on religion?

[Ibanez]

Think of how much better their lives would be if you didn't abuse them by forcing your stupid religion on them?

How many hours have those girls spent in church -hearing the same lame bullshit from a pedophile, or praying or thinking about jesus? Let see, they're 16 years old...

Aside from all the money you gave the church, you, you idiot, so far have forced them to go to church, pray or think about your nonsense for approximately 2500 hours in the last 16 years. That 104 days EACH they didn't study science or math or art. 104 days they didn't play sports, read books, or spend fun time with family. 104 days immersed in the crock of **** dogma of an ignorant and barbaric tribe of sheep **** who lived in the ******* of the world.

If they continue to be held captive by your superstitions, you will have stolen years of their lives, just like your father and trembling mother did to you.

Go **** yourself, Father of the Year.

Why do you and many others on here go to personal attacks and name calling when someone does not have the same opinion as you?

I like having discussions on a wide range of topics but it seems like it comes down to being called a loser-dumbass or go F myself.

Actually my Christian beliefs have not adversely affected my daughters as you think. One has a 3.998 GPA and the other 3.892; both play VB and track. So I guess that kind of shoots down your theory...

You think religion is fantasy and superstitition.....well, that is fine..that is your opinion. But why go into a name calling tirade when someone posts a positive view on religion?

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

[Chizzang]

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

Yes..
This is actually a fascinating topic
and if Christianity in general spent as much time working to understand and discussing the above as they did blathering about Creationism and I. D. they might uncover some glaring subtleties

Like Definition of Sin = To miss the mark
From Aramaic language / Greek To sin is to miss understand the meaning or miss the mark

[Ibanez]

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

Yes..
This is actually a fascinating topic
and if Christianity in general spent as much time working to understand and discussing the above as they did blathering about Creationism and I. D. they might uncover some glaring subtleties

Like Definition of Sin = To miss the mark
From Aramaic language / Greek To sin is to miss understand the meaning or miss the mark

Yes.

The texts call Mary, "almah", which is a young woman of child bearing age. Many scholars agree that this word and it's meaning has nothing to do with virginity. The hebrew word for virgin is 'bethuwlah". There is a huge difference between those two words. This is from a poor translation AND an attempt to make Christianity similiar to another prelevant cult (Mithraism).

RESEMBLANCES BETWEEN MITHRAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

1. Both Mithras and Christ were portrayed as young and beardless; both sometimes appeared in the shepherd's role, and both saved mankind by performing sacrifical deeds.

2. Both Mithras and Christ had virgin births in the sense that they were conceived without any sexual union between man and woman. Christ's father was said to be God, while Mithras was said to have had no father or mother, having emerged as an adult from a large rock.

3. Both Mithraism and Christianity celebrated the birth of their god on the winter solstice, the 25th of December according to the Julian calendar. Both featured the sharing of presents, the use of Christmas trees with candles, and nativity scenes that included shepherds attracted by a sacred light. The special importance of this solstice ceremony to Mithraists would be indicated by the name Mithras, which derived from Meitras, which in Greek numerology refers to the number 365, the last day of the solar year at the winter solstice.

4. Both the Old Testament and Mithraic legend told of the first human couple having been created. Mithra supposedly kept a watchful eye over their descendents until Ahriman caused a draught that caused such thirst that they begged Mithra for water.

5. Both told of a major flood, in the case of Mithra through his having shot an arrow into a stone cliff to quench mankind's thirst. Unfortunately, the entire world's population was drowned in a flood produced by the water spout that gushed from the hole his arrow produced. One man alone (a Noah figure borrowed from the earlier Sumerian myth of Atrahasis) was warned in time and could therefore save himself and his cattle in an ark.

6. Both Mithraism and Christianity emphasized mankind's redemption resulting from a sacrificial death followed by the god's ascent to heaven. In the case of Christ, it was the god himself (or his son) who was sacrificed; in the case of Mithra, it was a sacred steer that Mithra sacrificed.

7. Both featured resurrection through sacrifice. Mithraism more obviously drew upon spring equinox fertility myths by depicting Mithra's sacrificial bull with a tail that consisted of sheaves of wheat that were supposedly scattered throughout the world once it was slaughtered. Also, the bull's blood formed the milky way, allowing human souls both to be born and to return to the heavens after death.

8. Both told of a Last Supper linked with the blood sacrifice whose symbolic recreation by eating bread and wine provided salvation for all worshippers. After Mithra killed the bull depicted in Mithraic art, he feasted upon it with the Sun God and other companions before ascending to the heavens in the sun god's chariot. The sequence was slightly different in the New Testament: Christ's Last Supper necessarily preceded his crucifixion rather than following it, after which he ascended to heaven.

9. Both emphasized purification through baptism, Mithraists by washing themselves in the blood of sacrificial oxen. While dying oxen bled to death on lattice floors built over their heads, initiates both drank and washed themselves with the blood that dripped on them.

10. Both featured secret temples located underground. For Christians it was a temporary expedient to avoid persecution, but for Mithraists it became a permanent institution, each small chapel, called a Mithraeum, having seated no more than fifty worshippers and having been constructed to point from east to west. Rounded ceilings were painted blue and imbedded with gemstones. There were no windows except for a few chapels in which tiny holes in the ceiling that had been bored to let in the light of certain stars at particular times of the year.

11. Both held Sunday to be sacred.

12. Both encouraged asceticism. Mithraists were expected to resist sensuality and to abstain from eating certain foods.

13. Both emphasized charity. Mithra was identified as the god of help who protected his worshippers, whatever their tribulations in life.

http://www.edwardjayne.com/christology/mithra.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Why do you and many others on here go to personal attacks and name calling when someone does not have the same opinion as you?

I like having discussions on a wide range of topics but it seems like it comes down to being called a loser-dumbass or go F myself.

Actually my Christian beliefs have not adversely affected my daughters as you think. One has a 3.998 GPA and the other 3.892; both play VB and track. So I guess that kind of shoots down your theory...

You think religion is fantasy and superstitition.....well, that is fine..that is your opinion. But why go into a name calling tirade when someone posts a positive view on religion?

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

Edward Jayne: a retired English professor and 60"s activist. So, is this the "gold standard" now?

Resemblances between Mithraism and Christianity. Ya, it looks like there are. There are also similarities with Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

Maybe with trade routes and caravan routes during these times that different religions or philosophies came into contact with each other. Probably did happen. Now you are right about inconsistencies. The Gospels were written down after the death of Jesus. Do people make mistakes in 'retelling' stories? Sure they do. But I believe in the original thesis that Jesus in the Son of God and he did for my sins and others also.

A person could make any argument they want to, for or against something. People can skew data any way they want to. Two people can get separate meanings and interpretations from the same quote or sentence.

My point is that, Christianity has touched me and made me a believer. It hasn't you and others on here.....that is fine with me. Everyone has their own beliefs or no beliefs.

Maybe the Angel Gabriel did reveal the Quran to Mohammad and we are all wrong....

[D1B]

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

Edward Jayne: a retired English professor and 60"s activist. So, is this the "gold standard" now?

Resemblances between Mithraism and Christianity. Ya, it looks like there are. There are also similarities with Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

Maybe with trade routes and caravan routes during these times that different religions or philosophies came into contact with each other. Probably did happen. Now you are right about inconsistencies. The Gospels were written down after the death of Jesus. Do people make mistakes in 'retelling' stories? Sure they do. But I believe in the original thesis that Jesus in the Son of God and he did for my sins and others also.

A person could make any argument they want to, for or against something. People can skew data any way they want to. Two people can get separate meanings and interpretations from the same quote or sentence.

My point is that, Christianity has touched me and made me a believer. It hasn't you and others on here.....that is fine with me. Everyone has their own beliefs or no beliefs.

Maybe the Angel Gabriel did reveal the Quran to Mohammad and we are all wrong....

Your religion is an accident of your birth. If you were born in Iran, you'd be a muslim.

I just feel bad, decent people like you falling victim to such an insidious ruse.

If you get something out of it, great. You seem like a very decent man.

[Ibanez]

I do agree that name calling is ridiculous.

However, you can either accept or ignore the fact that many events or "miracles" from the Bible are really natural occurances and that the similiarites between Jesus (and his entire story i.e. the virgin birth, 40 days in the desert, rising after 3 days, etc..) Mithra, Pagan Gods, Ra, etc... You can accept or ignore that fact that men had to decide the Divinity of Christ, that men chose and edited which books would be included, that the translation from Aramic to Greek and Latin contain many inconsistencies that result in the beliefs held by the RCC.

Edward Jayne: a retired English professor and 60"s activist. So, is this the "gold standard" now?

Resemblances between Mithraism and Christianity. Ya, it looks like there are. There are also similarities with Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

Maybe with trade routes and caravan routes during these times that different religions or philosophies came into contact with each other. Probably did happen. Now you are right about inconsistencies. The Gospels were written down after the death of Jesus. Do people make mistakes in 'retelling' stories? Sure they do. But I believe in the original thesis that Jesus in the Son of God and he did for my sins and others also.

A person could make any argument they want to, for or against something. People can skew data any way they want to. Two people can get separate meanings and interpretations from the same quote or sentence.

My point is that, Christianity has touched me and made me a believer. It hasn't you and others on here.....that is fine with me. Everyone has their own beliefs or no beliefs.

Maybe the Angel Gabriel did reveal the Quran to Mohammad and we are all wrong....

Edward Jayne or not, the facts are the same. Christianity shares so much with Mithraism because Mithraism was a larger cult in the early century and the church fathers used similiar stories and ideas to make converting easier. That's a fact you can choose to accept or ignore.

[rkwittem]

I know I'm late to the party. Regardless, allow me to shed some light on these bible passages as they are understood in some circles of bible study. Please note that this field of bible study is not one that pertains to "interpretation" as it is used in a religious sense, but a historical sense, where context is of utmost importance. Not to toot my own horn, but I have actually been educated on this by accredited schools. I'm not claiming expertise or that I'm smarter than any of you, only that I've actually studied this material. (The joys of the liberal arts.)

Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

Sources - evilbible.com and skeptics annotated bible

First off, the number one most important thing to remember is that translating the Bible is a brutally difficult process. It depends on who originally wrote it, where it was written, their level of education, and who they wrote it for. How that gets translated and interpreted from that point can obviously muddy the picture considerably.

1) The genealogy of Jesus is an obvious complicated matter to solve. While there is little doubt that Christ himself walked this earth (plenty of Roman historical evidence supports this), the matter of how to get from Abraham to David to Jesus is considerably more debatable. My take is that people would do well to allow for an amount of scribal error. Remember, the author of the Gospel of Matthew didn't have wikipedia or a public libary/archives to go to whenever he/she pleased to write this stuff down. It's possible he made an error. There could be 41 or 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. We will likely never know.

2) It's pretty easy to see through this. Paul actually knew people that knew Jesus and I think it's plausible that Jesus had plenty of quotes that didn't make it into the current Gospels.

3) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by the same guy. It therefore stands to reason that their timelines would probably differ. Some gospels don't concern themselves with Jesus' childhood. Others had an anecdote or two from his pre-ministry years. Just because the two books line up does not automatically disprove them. This is not a trial where alibis have to be perfect to prove guilt/innocence.

I'm not going to specifically counter each and every one of these, but you catch my drift. The critics who wrote these clearly did not do a well-thought out job of it. They don't account for human error and the possibility that the source material that the evangelists drew from was probably slightly different for each of them.

And a few other notes- religion is not an "accident" of your birth. Sure, your parents might have a religion and raise you in it. But ultimately at some point, you need to make your mind up for yourself- accept your parents' beliefs as your own, or follow a different path? I would encourage you to avoid casting terms like "brainwashing" around lightly. It happens everywhere besides religion. Ever watch TV...it's everywhere whether you see it or not. My main point is simple- religion is your own free choice to make.

I have my own question for D1B- for someone who acts like he's the enlightened, almost holier-than-thou one (if I may say so), where do your ethics and morals come from? You want to paint those people who are religious as overzealous, brainwashed cultists and call us bigots and whatnot, so I thought I'd ask where you get your moral authority from.

[Ibanez]

Kitten, a bunch of illiterate fishermen "wrote" the bible and it was translated irresponsibly.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Kitten, a bunch of illiterate fishermen "wrote" the bible and it was translated irresponsibly.

Ibanez, who are probably right to some degree but the "foundation" of Christianity would not change for a believer....Jesus and why he was here....

[D1B]

I know I'm late to the party. Regardless, allow me to shed some light on these bible passages as they are understood in some circles of bible study. Please note that this field of bible study is not one that pertains to "interpretation" as it is used in a religious sense, but a historical sense, where context is of utmost importance. Not to toot my own horn, but I have actually been educated on this by accredited schools. I'm not claiming expertise or that I'm smarter than any of you, only that I've actually studied this material. (The joys of the liberal arts.)

Sources - evilbible.com and skeptics annotated bible

First off, the number one most important thing to remember is that translating the Bible is a brutally difficult process. It depends on who originally wrote it, where it was written, their level of education, and who they wrote it for. How that gets translated and interpreted from that point can obviously muddy the picture considerably.

1) The genealogy of Jesus is an obvious complicated matter to solve. While there is little doubt that Christ himself walked this earth (plenty of Roman historical evidence supports this), the matter of how to get from Abraham to David to Jesus is considerably more debatable. My take is that people would do well to allow for an amount of scribal error. Remember, the author of the Gospel of Matthew didn't have wikipedia or a public libary/archives to go to whenever he/she pleased to write this stuff down. It's possible he made an error. There could be 41 or 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. We will likely never know.

2) It's pretty easy to see through this. Paul actually knew people that knew Jesus and I think it's plausible that Jesus had plenty of quotes that didn't make it into the current Gospels.

3) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by the same guy. It therefore stands to reason that their timelines would probably differ. Some gospels don't concern themselves with Jesus' childhood. Others had an anecdote or two from his pre-ministry years. Just because the two books line up does not automatically disprove them. This is not a trial where alibis have to be perfect to prove guilt/innocence.

I'm not going to specifically counter each and every one of these, but you catch my drift. The critics who wrote these clearly did not do a well-thought out job of it. They don't account for human error and the possibility that the source material that the evangelists drew from was probably slightly different for each of them.

And a few other notes- religion is not an "accident" of your birth. Sure, your parents might have a religion and raise you in it. But ultimately at some point, you need to make your mind up for yourself- accept your parents' beliefs as your own, or follow a different path? I would encourage you to avoid casting terms like "brainwashing" around lightly. It happens everywhere besides religion. Ever watch TV...it's everywhere whether you see it or not. My main point is simple- religion is your own free choice to make.

I have my own question for D1B- for someone who acts like he's the enlightened, almost holier-than-thou one (if I may say so), where do your ethics and morals come from? You want to paint those people who are religious as overzealous, brainwashed cultists and call us bigots and whatnot, so I thought I'd ask where you get your moral authority from.

Wow.

Show us all the Roman evidence for christ. Eyewitnesses and non biblical please.

[rkwittem]

Wow.

Show us all the Roman evidence for christ. Eyewitnesses and non biblical please.

This is from Josephus, a Roman historian of the time. Books 18 and 20. Simply search for the word Jesus or Christ.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, book 15, chapter 44 of the Annals by Tacitus (another Roman) refers to the crucifixion.

If you want the ISBNs of books that also attest to his actual existence, I could supply you with them. It would be up to you to look up the books from there. Those sources I already posted were from the Romans. None of which are biblical, I might add.

[D1B]

Wow.

Show us all the Roman evidence for christ. Eyewitnesses and non biblical please.

This is from Josephus, a Roman historian of the time. Books 18 and 20. Simply search for the word Jesus or Christ.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, book 15, chapter 44 of the Annals by Tacitus (another Roman) refers to the crucifixion.

If you want the ISBNs of books that also attest to his actual existence, I could supply you with them. It would be up to you to look up the books from there. Those sources I already posted were from the Romans. None of which are biblical, I might add.

1. Josephus was born in 37 CE- well after christ was crucified. He wrote his jesus references after the gospels were written.

2. Tacitus was born in 64CE - see above

Yes, send me the ISBN's, whatever the fuck those are. Again, limit your response to eyewitness, non biblical accounts. Jesus, after all, was savior of the world and god incarnate. There should be shitloads of eyewitness accounts of him.

[rkwittem]

This is from Josephus, a Roman historian of the time. Books 18 and 20. Simply search for the word Jesus or Christ.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, book 15, chapter 44 of the Annals by Tacitus (another Roman) refers to the crucifixion.

If you want the ISBNs of books that also attest to his actual existence, I could supply you with them. It would be up to you to look up the books from there. Those sources I already posted were from the Romans. None of which are biblical, I might add.

1. Josephus was born in 37 CE- well after christ was crucified. He wrote his jesus references after the gospels were written.

2. Tacitus was born in 64CE - see above

Yes, send me the ISBN's, whatever the fuck those are. Again, limit your response to eyewitness, non biblical accounts. Jesus, after all, was savior of the world and god incarnate. There should be shitloads of eyewitness accounts of him.

You said you wanted eyewitness and non-biblical accounts. Am I to take it that Josephus, a man who reportedly knew Pontius Pilate (who really lived and actually governed Jesus during the time they both resided in Israel), simply "made up" the Jesus narrative even though he was not Christian and had nothing to gain from lying in his writings other than a loss of credibility? Or that Pilate lied to him and/or didn't have an eyewitness account of Jesus?

(An ISBN is the international standard book number, aka a method for cataloging books. Every book has one. ISBNs are the easiest way to ensure you get to the correct book.)

- B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : Writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
- Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
- Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
- James D. G. Dunn 'Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus' in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36
- Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
- Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127

I'm not going to bother tying the quote to the appropriate book, but know that these quotes came from each of these particular texts...

Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Grant: "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."

Burridge: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Dunn: [the theories of non-existence of Jesus are] "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy/Boyd: it's now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

I could go on, I have more sources.


Oh, and one more thing- why didn't you answer my question on where you get your morality from? I'm genuinely curious.

[kalm]

1. Josephus was born in 37 CE- well after christ was crucified. He wrote his jesus references after the gospels were written.

2. Tacitus was born in 64CE - see above

Yes, send me the ISBN's, whatever the fuck those are. Again, limit your response to eyewitness, non biblical accounts. Jesus, after all, was savior of the world and god incarnate. There should be shitloads of eyewitness accounts of him.

You said you wanted eyewitness and non-biblical accounts. Am I to take it that Josephus, a man who reportedly knew Pontius Pilate (who really lived and actually governed Jesus during the time they both resided in Israel), simply "made up" the Jesus narrative even though he was not Christian and had nothing to gain from lying in his writings other than a loss of credibility? Or that Pilate lied to him and/or didn't have an eyewitness account of Jesus?

(An ISBN is the international standard book number, aka a method for cataloging books. Every book has one. ISBNs are the easiest way to ensure you get to the correct book.)

- B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : Writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
- Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
- Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
- James D. G. Dunn 'Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus' in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36
- Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
- Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127

I'm not going to bother tying the quote to the appropriate book, but know that these quotes came from each of these particular texts...

Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Grant: "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."

Burridge: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Dunn: [the theories of non-existence of Jesus are] "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy/Boyd: it's now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

I could go on, I have more sources.


Oh, and one more thing- why didn't you answer my question on where you get your morality from? I'm genuinely curious.

A secular humanist culture...and quite possibly his brothers collection of Jugs.

[Ibanez]

1. Josephus was born in 37 CE- well after christ was crucified. He wrote his jesus references after the gospels were written.

2. Tacitus was born in 64CE - see above

Yes, send me the ISBN's, whatever the fuck those are. Again, limit your response to eyewitness, non biblical accounts. Jesus, after all, was savior of the world and god incarnate. There should be shitloads of eyewitness accounts of him.

You said you wanted eyewitness and non-biblical accounts. Am I to take it that Josephus, a man who reportedly knew Pontius Pilate (who really lived and actually governed Jesus during the time they both resided in Israel), simply "made up" the Jesus narrative even though he was not Christian and had nothing to gain from lying in his writings other than a loss of credibility? Or that Pilate lied to him and/or didn't have an eyewitness account of Jesus?

(An ISBN is the international standard book number, aka a method for cataloging books. Every book has one. ISBNs are the easiest way to ensure you get to the correct book.)

- B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : Writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
- Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
- Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
- James D. G. Dunn 'Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus' in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36
- Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
- Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127

I'm not going to bother tying the quote to the appropriate book, but know that these quotes came from each of these particular texts...

Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Grant: "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."

Burridge: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Dunn: [the theories of non-existence of Jesus are] "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy/Boyd: it's now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

I could go on, I have more sources.


Oh, and one more thing- why didn't you answer my question on where you get your morality from? I'm genuinely curious.

Your qoutes do not prove anything. THey just agree that Jesus existed. The fact is, that there is not historical record of Jesus existing, aside from the Bible (which shouldn't be taken at face value). If we believe that Jesus exisited, soley from the Bible, then Miss Havisham, Tom Sawyer and Ebenezer Scrooge were real people. There is nothing from a Contemporary of Jesus, outside of the Bible.

If there was a person that was born of a virgin, rose the dead, cured the lame and blind, fed people with a few fish, turned water to wine, was killed which coincided with earthquakes and ominous dark clouds and then was risen, walked as a zombie for 40 days before going to heaven..if that person actually existed, then why is there only ONE record of it (The Bible?) There is nothing from Herod or his court about this man. There is nothing from Pontious Pilate.

[D1B]

1. Josephus was born in 37 CE- well after christ was crucified. He wrote his jesus references after the gospels were written.

2. Tacitus was born in 64CE - see above

Yes, send me the ISBN's, whatever the fuck those are. Again, limit your response to eyewitness, non biblical accounts. Jesus, after all, was savior of the world and god incarnate. There should be shitloads of eyewitness accounts of him.

You said you wanted eyewitness and non-biblical accounts. Am I to take it that Josephus, a man who reportedly knew Pontius Pilate (who really lived and actually governed Jesus during the time they both resided in Israel), simply "made up" the Jesus narrative even though he was not Christian and had nothing to gain from lying in his writings other than a loss of credibility? Or that Pilate lied to him and/or didn't have an eyewitness account of Jesus?

(An ISBN is the international standard book number, aka a method for cataloging books. Every book has one. ISBNs are the easiest way to ensure you get to the correct book.)

- B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : Writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
- Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
- Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
- James D. G. Dunn 'Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus' in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36
- Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
- Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127

I'm not going to bother tying the quote to the appropriate book, but know that these quotes came from each of these particular texts...

Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Grant: "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."

Burridge: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Dunn: [the theories of non-existence of Jesus are] "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy/Boyd: it's now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

I could go on, I have more sources.


Oh, and one more thing- why didn't you answer my question on where you get your morality from? I'm genuinely curious.

I get my morality the same place you do - the collective experience and wisdom and stupidity of man. The difference between you and I is I dont attribute these to a sky god.

You still have failed to provide the required sources.

[Wedgebuster]

It is as impossible to de-stupify the superstitious as it is to de-gun shy a bird dog. It is branded to the brain, at a very young age. I chose to let the worshipers of invisible friends to go unfettered until it becomes a burden on me or my family or my property, and especially when It makes it's way to politics, then I ain't so damned tolerant anymore.

[rkwittem]

You said you wanted eyewitness and non-biblical accounts. Am I to take it that Josephus, a man who reportedly knew Pontius Pilate (who really lived and actually governed Jesus during the time they both resided in Israel), simply "made up" the Jesus narrative even though he was not Christian and had nothing to gain from lying in his writings other than a loss of credibility? Or that Pilate lied to him and/or didn't have an eyewitness account of Jesus?

(An ISBN is the international standard book number, aka a method for cataloging books. Every book has one. ISBNs are the easiest way to ensure you get to the correct book.)

- B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : Writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
- Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
- Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
- James D. G. Dunn 'Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus' in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36
- Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
- Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127

I'm not going to bother tying the quote to the appropriate book, but know that these quotes came from each of these particular texts...







I could go on, I have more sources.


Oh, and one more thing- why didn't you answer my question on where you get your morality from? I'm genuinely curious.

Your qoutes do not prove anything. THey just agree that Jesus existed. The fact is, that there is not historical record of Jesus existing, aside from the Bible (which shouldn't be taken at face value). If we believe that Jesus exisited, soley from the Bible, then Miss Havisham, Tom Sawyer and Ebenezer Scrooge were real people. There is nothing from a Contemporary of Jesus, outside of the Bible.

If there was a person that was born of a virgin, rose the dead, cured the lame and blind, fed people with a few fish, turned water to wine, was killed which coincided with earthquakes and ominous dark clouds and then was risen, walked as a zombie for 40 days before going to heaven..if that person actually existed, then why is there only ONE record of it (The Bible?) There is nothing from Herod or his court about this man. There is nothing from Pontious Pilate.

My quotes prove exactly what I wanted them to, that Jesus Christ was a real man who actually existed. None of these are based on the bible either. They are based, for the most part, on historical data of the time. Only an idiot would take the bible as a historical document. The bible is no more a textbook than I am a bird. Do you really think poor, uneducated Jews or Roman magistrates and their lackeys (aka Herod) kept detailed records about religious leaders who were preaching outside their jurisdiction? If so, you are as naive as you are narrowminded.

HOWEVER...Sir Isaac Newton did attempt to calculate the date of the Crucifixion based on the timing of the Jewish passover and the Jewish calendar...and he got April 23, 34 AD. Since this times up well with the Passover (the biblical account of when the crucifixion happens) and other attempts based on the lunar eclipse ("blood moon") arrive at the year 33 AD, I'm tempted to believe they are not coincidences. Whether or not you choose to accept these scientific models is your choice. I just thought I'd raise the issue since you claimed no one made record of skies darkening.

The bible, more or less, is a combination of some history, some mythology, some theology, and some philosophy. To take it as science or hard factual proof for the existence of god is absolutely brainless, just like the ever too popular comeback "if there was no eyewitness, then it did not happen."

I tire of trying to impress on you the possibilities that the bible might not be a historical document and things actually happen without the presence of eyewitness records. Stick your head in the sand all you want. I'm taking Josephus' word over yours, sorry.

[Ibanez]

Your qoutes do not prove anything. THey just agree that Jesus existed. The fact is, that there is not historical record of Jesus existing, aside from the Bible (which shouldn't be taken at face value). If we believe that Jesus exisited, soley from the Bible, then Miss Havisham, Tom Sawyer and Ebenezer Scrooge were real people. There is nothing from a Contemporary of Jesus, outside of the Bible.

If there was a person that was born of a virgin, rose the dead, cured the lame and blind, fed people with a few fish, turned water to wine, was killed which coincided with earthquakes and ominous dark clouds and then was risen, walked as a zombie for 40 days before going to heaven..if that person actually existed, then why is there only ONE record of it (The Bible?) There is nothing from Herod or his court about this man. There is nothing from Pontious Pilate.

My quotes prove exactly what I wanted them to, that Jesus Christ was a real man who actually existed. None of these are based on the bible either. They are based, for the most part, on historical data of the time. Only an idiot would take the bible as a historical document. The bible is no more a textbook than I am a bird. Do you really think poor, uneducated Jews or Roman magistrates and their lackeys (aka Herod) kept detailed records about religious leaders who were preaching outside their jurisdiction? If so, you are as naive as you are narrowminded.

HOWEVER...Sir Isaac Newton did attempt to calculate the date of the Crucifixion based on the timing of the Jewish passover and the Jewish calendar...and he got April 23, 34 AD. Since this times up well with the Passover (the biblical account of when the crucifixion happens) and other attempts based on the lunar eclipse ("blood moon") arrive at the year 33 AD, I'm tempted to believe they are not coincidences. Whether or not you choose to accept these scientific models is your choice. I just thought I'd raise the issue since you claimed no one made record of skies darkening.

The bible, more or less, is a combination of some history, some mythology, some theology, and some philosophy. To take it as science or hard factual proof for the existence of god is absolutely brainless, just like the ever too popular comeback "if there was no eyewitness, then it did not happen."

I tire of trying to impress on you the possibilities that the bible might not be a historical document and things actually happen without the presence of eyewitness records. Stick your head in the sand all you want. I'm taking Josephus' word over yours, sorry.

Your evidence is a bunch of authors saying, "yes, he was real". In fact, there is no contemporary, historical record of such a man. We know so much about so many insignficant people, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus would have more records other than a religious text and the words of his followers. His detractors make no mention of him during or after his life. My head is not in the sand. I opened my eyes to the hoax that is religion years ago.

[89Hen]

Your evidence is a bunch of authors saying, "yes, he was real". In fact, there is no contemporary, historical record of such a man. We know so much about so many insignficant people, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus would have more records other than a religious text and the words of his followers. His detractors make no mention of him during or after his life. My head is not in the sand. I opened my eyes to the hoax that is religion years ago.

FWIW, even DB1 and Cap'n acknowledge Jesus, the man, as a historical figure.

[Ibanez]

Your evidence is a bunch of authors saying, "yes, he was real". In fact, there is no contemporary, historical record of such a man. We know so much about so many insignficant people, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus would have more records other than a religious text and the words of his followers. His detractors make no mention of him during or after his life. My head is not in the sand. I opened my eyes to the hoax that is religion years ago.

FWIW, even DB1 and Cap'n acknowledge Jesus, the man, as a historical figure.

Where is the historical record, from the time that he was alive, that proves such a man existed? Being so far disconnected, it is rather pointless to debate the topic.

[Ibanez]

I know historical texts, let alone any that pertain to religion and a remote location, would be difficult to locate. However, he came in contact with historical people like Herod and Pilate. We know much about these men outside of the Bible. We know about ordinary men that Pheidippides and his one day of fame, 400 years before Christ. If someone was as influential as Jesus was, and was active for 3 years, wouldn't there be more written on him?

That's the last I'll say on it.