Which makes more sense?

OK, now you're speculating.There's no way for us to know what would have happened to christianity if Paul never showed up.

As for Constantine, I think it's more likely (ruling out his actual conversion)that he chose christianity as a viable universal religion for the empire because it had grown and was growing at such an astonishing rate--not the other way around.

 

Now you are speculating about Constantine. But, hell...we all speculate, don't we?

Go back and read my addition to my last post. I edited it to add more.

 

What do the essenes say about it? As far as I know there's only one scholar who ever supported the theory (his) that there was anything in the Dead sea scrolls refering to Jesus of Nazareth.

If you're taking about the Gospel of the Twelve aka the Gospel of the Nazarrenes, hasn't that been dated to the mid-second century?

The gnostic gospels (with the exception of thomas), were later works too weren't they?

 

I'm not arguing for the validity of the story itself (I'm not really arguing at all I'm just trying to gather what info there is).

 

They describe the metaphors and symbolism behind it all, I think. But, that's just my opinion based on other research which confirms it as a super coincidence "Jesus" went through the same exact life as his mythical predecessors.

Also, the failure to produce ORIGINAL evidence of the gospels is fairly poor evidence that this is the WORD OF GOD...etc...etc.

Correlation with mythological stories, no corresponding dates, interpolations, and a multitude of contradictory beliefs, divisions and "pick and choose" philosophies turn Christianity into a plethora of absurdity.

 

Or cover it up in same. Like I said in another thread sometimes if you want to see the writing on the wall you have to wipe off the grafitti first.

If it turns out that all it is is graffitti, cie la vi, I can go back to hanging out with the universe the way I was doing before. minus that little nodule of "you're going to hell" in the back of my head.

 

I am sorry you have to live with that fear created by assholes who want to stop you from going any further than their dogma permits.

But, on the other hand, if you accept that belief, I respect your right to choose whatever makes it happen for you.

 

Thanks.

Lol, can't hold it against them; the poor assholes who brainwashed us were brainwashed themselves.

 

[speaking for YBY]

As a mater of interest

What is punnishment?
Is it not what you recieve if you do wrong
so you will be deterred from doing it again?

If so.
Then the christian hell only works as a threat.

For if a hell exists as thou religion describes
Then hell is not punnishment.

No human psyche can withstand torture for hours..
let alone eternity.
All who went to hell would cease being conscious thinking selves and would fall into a black pit of total insanity
Thus no people would exist in hell. only tortured psyches without thought
or personality.

A process accelerated by the knowing that it would never end.

The conclusion is..
No sane being..god or otherwise.
Would actually operate a hell unless they took great pleasure in seeing
mindless husks screaming forever.
Without chance for redemption.
Which is the final aim of punnishment is it not?

So dont come to occam an say jesus has anything to do with such insanity.
He promoted love. He would vomit if found out that 2000 years
passed and we were still so stupid as to belive such pre-christian crud.
And link it to him.

If you so called christians wont stand up and say what YOU KNOW jesus would say.
That the modern christian church stole his name and made it an empire.

Then i guess this AGNOSTIC will have to speak for the man.
He was a worthy and wise human.
He deserves that much respect.


If religion had it's shit together.
It would reform itself and reprint the bible NOW.
While you still have a chance.

And to any who ask..

Occam 'speaks for the man' without fear and with total confidence.
Why?
No ego and not power mongering.
No glory or cudos or guru-ism.

He just thinks the poor bugger tried to make a life by his own philosophy.
He tried to pass it on to others as was his ethical duty to his race.
And he knew this...Thats why he was wise.
And human ignorance killed him for it.

Occam

As to him being the son of god...
Where does this US and THEM shit come from?

We are not the lowly creations that need god.
We are the only thing that god needs.
Friends.

You and your religion are amatures.
Playing at understanding reality without being bothered to think about it.

Human philosophy left you in the weeds in the 1850's
All you know is what the bible says..and it was composed by men like you.
Men with desire and ambition.
And a self righteous ego THAT SAYS...I AM IMPORTANT TO ME.
And thus reality is all about me.

 

333

 

isn't there some kind of proof that what happened in the Bible is historically accurate? Then I don't see how Jesus couldn't be an actual person in history... whether or not he's the son of god is obviously up to interpretation but anyway...

 

The names, dates and places of the NT are self-supporting. That is, there is no historical documentation of any of them existing outside of the bible. In fact, it has recently been discovered that there was never any place called Jerusalem or Nazareth in existence at the supposed time of the supposed Jesus, and the conclusion is that these two place names are purely the result of catholic church intervention in fabricating "history" to support it's Jesus myth, circa 400ad (when it was realized that the lie could not be continued without evidential locations). Neither is there historical corroboration of any miracle or "god" man named "Jesus" or "Yeshua" or the crucifixion of anyone like-named by any of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman historical chroniclers of the era. It has lately been proven beyond doubt that references to the supposed Jesus in Josephus are forgeries that were inserted about the same time as were the place name concoctions (lies).
How much grief will there be when rank-and-file christians finally allow themselves to know the truth that will set them free? I think many will be very, very, angry!

 

Yeah, Israel didn't exist either. And WWII didn't happen. And I did not type this message.

 

For the edification of the ignorant ~
Decades of archeological analysis by Professor Thomas Thompson (Marquette University Milwaukee) and his team provide incontrovertible evidence that Jerusalem was not in existence at the timethe bible says it was. Extensive excavations and investigations of major sites in Palestine produced no historical or archeological evidence whatsoever to support the existence of jerusalem until a much later period in time.(Bushby, Crucifixion of truth)
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/vitae/thomas_l_thompson.htm

July/August 1998 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review
Most of the Late Bronze Age material recovered from Jerusalem has come from tombs, especially one on the Mount of Olives that contained hundreds of pots, mainly of local ware, and from a pit south of the city, which held some pottery and a scarab.(3) North of the Old City, the remains of what may have been an Egyptian temple were also excavated.(4)

But no remains of a town, let alone a city, have ever been found: not a trace of an encircling wall, no gate, no houses. Not a single piece of architecture. Simply nothing!(5)

http://www.truthbeknown.com/jerusalem.htm

 

There are a number of writings which are extra biblical which speak of Christ. If you do the research these writings are out there. Many donot want to believe in Christ, so the really don't look for this kind of evidence.

 

Yeah, they also claimed the shroud was real, too.

 

Only fifty years ago many liberal scholars rejected the historical accuracy of the Bible because they claimed that the Scriptures spoke about kings, places, and individuals that could not be confirmed from any other historical or archeological records. Recent discoveries, however, have now confirmed many biblical details, events, and personalities. For example, many modern scholars have contemptuously rejected the Bible's statements about King David. As an example Professor Philip R. Davies wrote ''I am not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur. Textbooks used in many universities and seminaries have openly rejected historical statements in the Scriptures about King David or Solomon. Thomas L. Thompson. He wrote, ''The existance of the Bible's 'United Monarchy' during the tenth century (B.C) is ...impossible.

However, Israeli archeologists were astonished to discover an ancient stone inscription at Tell Dan near the ancient city of Dan at the foot of Mount Hermon in northern Israel. This inscription fragment from a stele victory monument was written in the Aramaic language and clearly mentions ''the house of David. It was created by an enemy of Israel approximately 900 B.C. to describe their defeat of a Jewish army. An article in Biblical Archeological Review, March-April 1994 reported.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/criteria.htm

 

Yeah. Why don't you post a link to his works, instead of just a single snippet out of context like you did with this next quote:

This was taken out of context from : http://www.truthbeknown.com/jerusalem.htm

You will find this quote at the end of the article at: www.truthbeknown.com/jerusalem.htm
"By the seventh century B.C.E. the situation had completely changed. In the intervening period Jerusalem slowly grew. In the late eighth century B.C.E. the Assyrians destroyed much of the country. The Assyrian invasion actually brought an end to the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C.E. and destroyed much of Judah in 701 B.C.E. Only then did Jerusalem come to occupy a central position. In 587 B.C.E. the city was destroyed by the Babylonians. Debris from the Babylonian destruction has been found in massive layers, yielding an enormous amount of architecture and objects. This makes it possible to reconstruct life in the city in the second half of the seventh century, just before its tragic end. But that is another story."

You do remember my comments about your intellectual flaws from before, don't you?

Seems like you are still making the same mistakes. Nice of you to provide further proof for my argument that you have fundamental intellectual flaws.

 

Don't be such an idiot ~ the proof is that Jerusalem did not exist at the time bible dating suggests that it does. Jerusalerm is archeologically PROVEN to come into being AT A MUCH LATER DATE than biblical folklore states. But that is well beyond your ability to understand, it seems.

 

Actually, your original claim was that Jerusalem did not exist at the time of Jesus:

Which is the claim of yours that I disagree with. You then sited a website that disagrees with your own statement (and I really get a kick out of revealing your errors- thanks for making so many) to prove your statement, which I found pretty hilarious (thanks).

The one website did mention that archeological evidence indicating Jerusalem was a major city during the reigns of David and Solomon was not found (evidence was not found to indicate it was big until ~250 years after David's reign).

Once again, your original argument was against the New Testament, not the Old (which covers David and Solomon who supposedly existed 1000 years before Christ).

Second of all, lack of archeological evidence for the existence of something is not evidence against it's existence. Look at the gaps in fossil records that creationists are so fond of talking about. Of course, there is the possibility that the fossils do not exist, but the fact is, we might not have found them yet. And if all of the fossils were destroyed by some calamity that we have found no evidence for, does this mean the creationists were correct the whole time because no fossils to indicate continuous evolution were found? I think not.