There is no such thing as good versus evil

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I've heard this point discussed, but it fails to account for the seriousness the Jews took into account when discussing their early history. The Dead Sea scrolls showed exactly how precisely the writings over a thousand years were preserved.
I agree. also doesn't account for things unpreservered since papyrus was the dominant article writings were made on- if those were not buried-- its highly likely they wouldn't survive hundreds of years...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Integral9
I'm no bible thumper or atheist or any other kind of extremist. But I did go church school growing up and did take countless religion classes. So I do know a lot about the history of Christianity.
...
Jesus was crucified for being proclaimed by the Jews as their King. Which pissed off Pontious Pilot (who really was their king) and who saw it as a rebellion and quelled it in the Roman manner; with execution. His motives were purely political. He didn't care about the religious differences among the Jewish people, he was still worshiping the Roman gods and Jesus and the Jews were an issue he wanted to leave to the Jewish counsil {can't remember what they were called} but his hand was forced.
The version of the Bible that most people see today dates back to the Council of Nicea (that's were the Nicene Creed comes from, but some of you say the Apostles Creed on Sunday). The Council of Nicea didn't convene until like 500AD, well after the death of Jesus. Their job was to consolidate and standardize the Christian Bible, which was important as the religion was begining to fragment. What sucks imo. is that the council didn't just combine all the books together into one anthology, but they also threw books out. Some of which might have been relevent. I dont' know, haven't read any of them.

I disagree with this in some ways. I hold the version of Jesus' cruxifiction to being more like what is in the Passion. I think that the Jewish leaders are the ones who were responsible for the persecution of Jesus because they were either offended or threatened by his teachings and that they took this to the Roman authorities and persuaded them that he could be a threat and could possibably cause an uprising. Pilot was just a govenor of the land and tried staying out of these sorts of things, and merely wanted to make sure he kept control and recieved taxes.
All the books of the Bible are consistant and I believe the ones that are not included were denied because they did not follow in the consistancy and the standard of all the other books. The books are said to be inspired by God that are in the Bible, and perhaps it was clear that these books were just the thoughts of men or other accounts that don't merit their placement in the Bible. I can't say that some of these books don't contain relevant information, but they may need to be read in another manner as an interpretation possibably, but not as the Word Of God

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I disagree with this in some ways. I hold the version of Jesus' cruxifiction to being more like what is in the Passion. I think that the Jewish leaders are the ones who were responsible for the persecution of Jesus because they were either offended or threatened by his teachings and that they took this to the Roman authorities and persuaded them that he could be a threat and could possibably cause an uprising. Pilot was just a govenor of the land and tried staying out of these sorts of things, and merely wanted to make sure he kept control and recieved taxes.
All the books of the Bible are consistant and I believe the ones that are not included were denied because they did not follow in the consistancy and the standard of all the other books. The books are said to be inspired by God that are in the Bible, and perhaps it was clear that these books were just the thoughts of men or other accounts that don't merit their placement in the Bible. I can't say that some of these books don't contain relevant information, but they may need to be read in another manner as an interpretation possibably, but not as the Word Of God
or that the books cast asside differed from the story they wanted to portray, therby the only let you read what they wanted you to. Sound familiar.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
I think no matter what proof we present..it's not in a blog and Jmick won't accept it.
Surely I'll get deleted or flamed or banned but I need to know something and I mean no disrespect.
Jmick, does that name stand for Jewish/Irish in some weird way?? Just curious.

If you meant no disrepect then why say you mean no disrespect unless you had those kinds of thoughts?
Jmick is the combination of my first and last name...it is Irish....why would you think it's Jewish?

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I disagree with this in some ways. I hold the version of Jesus' cruxifiction to being more like what is in the Passion. I think that the Jewish leaders are the ones who were responsible for the persecution of Jesus because they were either offended or threatened by his teachings and that they took this to the Roman authorities and persuaded them that he could be a threat and could possibably cause an uprising. Pilot was just a govenor of the land and tried staying out of these sorts of things, and merely wanted to make sure he kept control and recieved taxes.
All the books of the Bible are consistant and I believe the ones that are not included were denied because they did not follow in the consistancy and the standard of all the other books. The books are said to be inspired by God that are in the Bible, and perhaps it was clear that these books were just the thoughts of men or other accounts that don't merit their placement in the Bible. I can't say that some of these books don't contain relevant information, but they may need to be read in another manner as an interpretation possibably, but not as the Word Of God
Agreed. The Romans were not nearly as afraid of or concerened of Jesus as the Jewish leaders of the time. Caiphus (Jewish) proclaimed Jesus's teachings as blaspemy and called upon Pilate (Roman) to eradicate his fears. Pilate actually didn't see the need to crucify Christ and left it to the mob to decide. The mob picked a theif and murderer Barabus (sp) to live over Christ.

 

[nigerbang]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Agreed. The Romans were not nearly as afraid of or concerened of Jesus as the Jewish leaders of the time. Caiphus (Jewish) proclaimed Jesus's teachings as blaspemy and called upon Pilate (Roman) to eradicate his fears. Pilate actually didn't see the need to crucify Christ and left it to the mob to decide. The mob picked a theif and murderer Barabus (sp) to live over Christ.
And told the jewish people, That Jesus's blood was on there hands..

 

[clown boy]

The New Testament letters were written to the Church, not to polititions... this is CLEARLY stated in the beginning of each one.

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Agreed. The Romans were not nearly as afraid of or concerened of Jesus as the Jewish leaders of the time. Caiphus (Jewish) proclaimed Jesus's teachings as blaspemy and called upon Pilate (Roman) to eradicate his fears. Pilate actually didn't see the need to crucify Christ and left it to the mob to decide. The mob picked a theif and murderer Barabus (sp) to live over Christ.
we'll technically the crowd did us all a favor. I mean he did have to DIE for our sins, right?

 

[clown boy]

No. The death of Jesus was part of God's plan, but it certainly was not his will for people to hate him.

 

[aztec reef]

The ones that seem to be pushing their religion are the Christians, just like the romans did back then..Jmick, apperantly this people have no facts or proof about the existence of their solar messiah, Yet they keep pushing their fairy tale..

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Jmick, you're asking for "standards" not normally associated with the study of historical figures.
For instance, go to any Freshman level Lit class and you'll read Homer's writings. No one argues that Homer existed or that he wrote the Iliad. Yet, can you show any proof of his existence dating to his lifetime?
I understand denying what the Bible says is true. I cannot, however, understand arguing that Jesus did not exist. A careful study of archeology, history, religion, etc. shows that something happened in the middle of the first century. Christianity went from inception to the most dominant religion in about 300 years; under sometimes brutal persecution.
The Pauline letters, for instance, were written in the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Yet church history shows that his writings were accepted. Why is that?
I could understand denying the existence of a man named "Jesus" if a religion sprung up to worship him 200 years after he died. That's not the historical case, however. Christianity "appears" on the scene immediately.
you discount Roman historians for writing in the later part of the first century. Consider, however, that their audience undoubtedly contained eyewitnesses, even if they themselves were not.
You ask for eyewitness writings; let me ask for eyewitness denials? How about eyewitness debates? Why is it, do you think, that a religion was able to grow up under persecution without being shot down by eyewitnesses?
I disagree; when you look at most historical figures of his magnitude they had vast amounts of information written about them during the time they lived (Nero, Caesar, Plato, Napoleon, etc).
I never said a man named Jesus didn't live; I said a man/god named Jesus didn't.
Why are there no portraits of Jesus, no busts, no statues…nothing to show his likeness?

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
No. The death of Jesus was part of God's plan, but it certainly was not his will for people to hate him.
it was a joke. apparently one that wasn't understood.

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Aztec Reef
The ones that seem to be pushing their religion are the Christians, just like the romans did back then..Jmick, apperantly this people have no facts or proof about the existence of their solar messiah, Yet they keep pushing their fairy tale..

Yeah, I always say, "It's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club".

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Jmick
I disagree; when you look at most historical figures of his magnitude they had vast amounts of information written about them during the time they lived (Nero, Caesar, Plato, Napoleon, etc).
I never said a man named Jesus didn't live; I said a man/god named Jesus didn't.
Why are there no portraits of Jesus, no busts, no statues…nothing to show his likeness?
easy, they might label you a terrorist next.

 

[nigerbang]

Originally Posted by AGENT-X
Yeah, I always say, "It's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club".

 

[clown boy]

So you want evidence that Jesus existed? I can give you some good links...

 

[clown boy]

My question is... why is Alexander the Great more credible than Jesus?

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
So you want evidence that Jesus existed? I can give you some good links...
There are links that the Loch Ness monster is real too. And actually I'm fairly sure that there is one about Manbearpig too.

 

[nigerbang]

Originally Posted by AGENT-X
There are links that the Loch Ness monster is real too. And actually I'm fairly sure that there is one about Manbearpig too.
ManBearPig....I have never even heard of that...lol

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Aztec Reef
The ones that seem to be pushing their religion are the Christians, just like the romans did back then..Jmick, apperantly this people have no facts or proof about the existence of their solar messiah, Yet they keep pushing their fairy tale..

Do your own research! There is OVERWHELMING evidence for Jesus being God's son! You will be convinced far better if you look for yourself!