Jump to content

Not A Christian


Kirangel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know which moderator I should address this to so I'm just posting this here because it's the only other fitting place.

 

I'm not a Christian, I haven't been one for a while now and I'm assuming the reason I can't post in some of the threads is because you think I am one, and that I came here under false pretenses (or my computer might just be having issues). It's understandable because I didn't really explain my beliefs, but do not throw me into a category that I do not fit into.

 

I'm not an atheist either, I believe in some sort of force but have not yet given it a name, I read about different spiritualities, belief systems, world paradigms and entertain some of their ideas. I could be a Christian revert someday, it's entirely possible although doubtful because the bible never has really fit together for me, there is just too much in it that I cannot reconcile with.

 

 

As for my signature, it does not make me a Christian because I like reading the bible, someday I want to be able to read the Latin Vulgate, and the books in Hebrew and Greek. I like Jesus and I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he taught. I view him at the very least as an enlightened figure in history.

 

I'll take some of the blame for the misunderstanding though, I was kind of venting (I apologize for that) but I didn't mean to take away from Bright's story. Many people go through a much more difficult time when they leave their faith, Bright's transitioning was encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know I wouldn't want to be labeled as a Christian here at Ex-C if I were not one. Of course Open_Minded seems to have handled herself well enough.

 

Then again, just saying that you think Jesus may be an enlightened figure may get you into hot water here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, just saying that you think Jesus may be an enlightened figure may get you into hot water here too.

 

 

Not so much as "hot water" as possibly being asked to explain why Kirangel feels that way. It's fine to admire fictional characters, I liked Anita Blake until she turned into a whiny sex obsessed numbskull. But as she is a fictional character, I couldn't use the word "enlightened". That kind of word you only apply to real people. There is no sufficient evidence that Jesus was a real person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much as "hot water" as possibly being asked to explain why Kirangel feels that way.

That sounds like a good idea White Raven.

 

Kirangel why do feel that Jesus was an enlightend figure? I don't care to go into whether he was historical or fictional. I'm just curious as to what teachings lead you to believe that he was enlightened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe Jesus actually walked the face of the earth; there is plenty of evidence to support this and not enough to suggest otherwise.

 

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether or not he actually existed because the stories surrounding his life are inspiring regardless. He stood against the established society, he taught love instead of hate. His message was one of unity. He included women as important figures, he stopped people from stoning to death a woman for adultery. He did not place himself above others, he helped the poor, and suffering. He was VERY intelligent in the way that he dealt with those who opposed him, like when the pharisees were trying to trap him between loyalty to God and the Romans. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" Matt. 22:21. He taught through words, he had to be very careful with his chosen words, and he backed up those words by his actions, it's something most people will fail to do. He had knowledge of life that other people did not.

 

Maybe he was a fabrication whose life was based on other mythological figures, maybe those stories were incorporated into his own. He could have been a prophet, God, or just a human being, but if just human then he was an enlightened individual.

 

I'm trying to examine his life through sources other than christian ones, I want to look at the non-canonical texts a little more I have only skimmed through some of them but the only one I've read through more was 1 enoch. Muslims respect him as a prophet, I believe many buddhists see him as an enlightened figure but I haven't really spoken to them to confirm that. Some believe that he went to the east during the lost years of his childhood and was influenced by buddhist thought. then there are the mainstream christians who see him as God, and then the others who see him as a God, or at least an idividual chosen by God to carry his word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you arrive at most of your conclusions without some severe cherry picking of verses.

 

As to evidence for Jesus... Plenty? Which universe? The primary sources are the Cult documents. It's like saying Darth Vader existed by only referencing the Star Wars Films, the expanded SW Universe and selected Fan fics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Kirangel, I think that is fair enough. Thank you. If I am hearing you right, then you feel that Jesus was an excellent teacher and role model. But you don't necessarily regard him as being divine or as being God. And this is what disqualifies you as being a Christian.

 

I hope that I have that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jesus and I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he taught.

 

In my book that makes you a Christian.

 

I do believe Jesus actually walked the face of the earth; there is plenty of evidence to support this and not enough to suggest otherwise.

 

I'd be interested to see this evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jesus and I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he taught.

 

In my book that makes you a Christian.

Actually I don't agree with you here Jun, even though I most of the time do.

 

I heard Muslims claim that Jesus was a great teacher and told many and great truths. But that doesn't make them Christians. I also heard people from other religions say similar things, even Buddhists (I think).

 

To be Christian is to take it the step further to claim Jesus was son of God and salvation from eternal damnation etc, blah, blah, only can be done through this invisible fictitious friend of theirs.

 

So, no, I can accept that Kirangel is not a Christian. He's innocent until proven guilty. :)

 

I do believe Jesus actually walked the face of the earth; there is plenty of evidence to support this and not enough to suggest otherwise.

 

I'd be interested to see this evidence.

I've heard atheists claim Jesus as a real person, like a sage, but it didn't make them Christians.

 

Yet, I do like to hear Kir's evidence too... :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

So, no, I can accept that Kirangel is not a Christian. He's innocent until proven guilty. :)

 

I agree. Most Christians would say one has to buy into the Nicene Creed to be a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard atheists claim Jesus as a real person, like a sage, but it didn't make them Christians.

 

Yet, I do like to hear Kir's evidence too...

 

Well, it’s possible that Jesus did not exist I won’t deny the possibility but my reasoning lies with the accounts given. You have the NT, Gnostic texts, early historians and actions among the people living during that time. I’ll look past Josephus, at the very least his writings with regards to Jesus were tampered with a little but there are other historians who do obviously make references to Jesus. The thing that gets me the most however is oral tradition, I have studied cultures and one thing that the western world seems to overlook and even scorn is the importance of oral tradition. Stories of Jesus were passed down by word of mouth, there were early Christians who believed in him as a human being who existed in this world, there are martyrs who died for him. How many of those early Christians would have had access to the writings that we see in the NT? The stories of his life may have been altered; at the very least they must have been for those who do not believe in him as a being who possessed supernatural abilities. But people knew of him. Also, there may be records to the East, in India…I’ll look into it more eventually, there are some interesting theories out there.

 

History is based on the accounts of people, until I look into this further, or until it is something more widely accepted then it would be illogical for me to go against what mainstream historians dictate.

 

 

Jun, I’m also interested in Siddhārtha Gautama and his life and teachings but I wouldn’t call myself a budhhist because of it. I suppose everyone has a different definition of what a christian is. I personally find the trinity to be a central tenet of the christian faith and find it hard to classify those who do not believe in it as christians.

 

Skip N. Church, thanks ^_^

 

 

Legion Regalis,

Yeah that sounds about right. I respect him and his message.

 

Grandpa Harley said:

I don't see how you arrive at most of your conclusions without some severe cherry picking of verses.

 

Have any particular examples in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramps took the words right outta my mouth. Or the words from my (angry) keyboard, as it were ;)

 

History is based on the accounts of people, until I look into this further, or until it is something more widely accepted then it would be illogical for me to go against what mainstream historians dictate.

 

History is based on facts, not merely the "accounts of people." Again, just because a bunch of people claim someone existed, doesn't make it so. As has been said, it'd be like claiming Darth Vader is real because of all the Star Wars films, books, and so forth. One would have to uncover and present evidence that proved such an individual existed, such as items owned or used by Vader, anything written by or otherwise created by him, or a reasonable number of eyewitness accounts or other contemporary accounts of him.

 

There is none of that for the dirtbag you speak of.

 

And how is he "enlightened"? I loathe when people say that; if people want to read something positive out of something sinister and utilize it positively in their lives, then that's fine, but in all honesty that's not a horsepill I can swallow.

 

As to why I say this, just click on the links below. I don't usually like to cut and paste stuff other people wrote when I can just link to it and make things easier on the server:

 

Jebus Lying about Prayer

Jebus the Jerk

Jebus behaving as a Cult Leader - no different than Jim Jones or David Koresh

 

Yeah, real "enlightened" individual :angry: Lately I've come to realize that Satan is the real hero of Xian mythology, and certainly more fit to be called a "saviour" than Jebus.

 

Well, if you're not a Xian, then that's good. I just hope you'll take a second look at this "enlightened" character, or at least a more honest look - not one that evangelical apologists would be more comfortable with. It's one hell of a monster those old churches created :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like you're on a personal journey of learning, Kirangel, and congrats to you for it.

As you continue in your quest for knowledge, and questions come up, please do post them here. There is much to be discussed in the days ahead. Enjoy your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Agree with Piprus, you're on the right track Kir.

 

You do know that Josephus did not live at the same time as Jesus, and Paul never met Jesus, and the Gospels were written quite some time after Paul's letters. So there's no text that was written contemporary (during the same time) as Jesus. Nothing. But there's some texts by philosophers and religious people at the same time as Jesus that should have written something, but didn't. It can't be explained with anything less than Jesus didn't exist at all, or he was barely some minor teacher somewhere that became a legend and got a lot of stories and ideas ascribed to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramps took the words right outta my mouth. Or the words from my (angry) keyboard, as it were ;)

 

History is based on the accounts of people, until I look into this further, or until it is something more widely accepted then it would be illogical for me to go against what mainstream historians dictate.

 

History is based on facts, not merely the "accounts of people." Again, just because a bunch of people claim someone existed, doesn't make it so. As has been said, it'd be like claiming Darth Vader is real because of all the Star Wars films, books, and so forth. One would have to uncover and present evidence that proved such an individual existed, such as items owned or used by Vader, anything written by or otherwise created by him, or a reasonable number of eyewitness accounts or other contemporary accounts of him.

 

Well, if you're not a Xian, then that's good. I just hope you'll take a second look at this "enlightened" character, or at least a more honest look - not one that evangelical apologists would be more comfortable with. It's one hell of a monster those old churches created :mellow:

 

Facts oftentimes end up being just the 'accounts of people', history is not the same as science it is events that are recorded and subject to the whims of an individual telling the tale. Yes, much of the times there is more evidence provided, written records, archaeological support, other accounts that can validate the same story, multiple eyewitness testimonies...they would all be appreciated but are not always present.

 

I gave my reasonings as to why I see Jesus as an enlightened individual, I have seen nothing that would suggest he is sinister in nature. I checked over the sites you've listed, the way they are being interpreted and used out of context is the problem.

 

eh, I used to go around saying that Jesus lied, the passages involving 'ask and you shall receive' used to bother me. He might have lied, if human then he most likely did since it is only human, whether or not it was intentional. I think there's more to the passage since it would be unreasonable for God to move mountains based on the whims of people. The impact that he had, the story of his life, there is nothing sinister about it. The stories of his life involved helping people, saving people, comforting those who were looked down upon, standing up for people who had no legal rights...he was enlightened. His actions do not suggest that he was sinister. But you can come to your own conclusions.

 

The churches did create a monster, but Jesus wasn't it. Terrorizing people in the name of God, creating a climate of fear was the monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Agree with Piprus, you're on the right track Kir.

 

You do know that Josephus did not live at the same time as Jesus, and Paul never met Jesus, and the Gospels were written quite some time after Paul's letters. So there's no text that was written contemporary (during the same time) as Jesus. Nothing. But there's some texts by philosophers and religious people at the same time as Jesus that should have written something, but didn't. It can't be explained with anything less than Jesus didn't exist at all, or he was barely some minor teacher somewhere that became a legend and got a lot of stories and ideas ascribed to him.

 

I don't count Josephus so it doesn't matter, but as for everything else, I keep looking into it but I usually end up sifting through the writings of highly biased Christians who are out to prove Jesus, and highly biased atheists intent on disproving his existence. Both groups are equally frustrating to me. Like I said before, it's not a closed case for me. Early Christians, and oral tradition is something that is hard for me to look past. Many historians mentioned his name, the people living around that time believed that he was an actual human being, it's even possible that some of the writings were actually done by people who knew him.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence though, from you and Piprus too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramps took the words right outta my mouth. Or the words from my (angry) keyboard, as it were ;)

 

History is based on the accounts of people, until I look into this further, or until it is something more widely accepted then it would be illogical for me to go against what mainstream historians dictate.

 

History is based on facts, not merely the "accounts of people." Again, just because a bunch of people claim someone existed, doesn't make it so. As has been said, it'd be like claiming Darth Vader is real because of all the Star Wars films, books, and so forth. One would have to uncover and present evidence that proved such an individual existed, such as items owned or used by Vader, anything written by or otherwise created by him, or a reasonable number of eyewitness accounts or other contemporary accounts of him.

 

Well, if you're not a Xian, then that's good. I just hope you'll take a second look at this "enlightened" character, or at least a more honest look - not one that evangelical apologists would be more comfortable with. It's one hell of a monster those old churches created :mellow:

 

Facts oftentimes end up being just the 'accounts of people', history is not the same as science it is events that are recorded and subject to the whims of an individual telling the tale. Yes, much of the times there is more evidence provided, written records, archaeological support, other accounts that can validate the same story, multiple eyewitness testimonies...they would all be appreciated but are not always present.

 

I gave my reasonings as to why I see Jesus as an enlightened individual, I have seen nothing that would suggest he is sinister in nature. I checked over the sites you've listed, the way they are being interpreted and used out of context is the problem.

 

eh, I used to go around saying that Jesus lied, the passages involving 'ask and you shall receive' used to bother me. He might have lied, if human then he most likely did since it is only human, whether or not it was intentional. I think there's more to the passage since it would be unreasonable for God to move mountains based on the whims of people. The impact that he had, the story of his life, there is nothing sinister about it. The stories of his life involved helping people, saving people, comforting those who were looked down upon, standing up for people who had no legal rights...he was enlightened. His actions do not suggest that he was sinister. But you can come to your own conclusions.

 

The churches did create a monster, but Jesus wasn't it. Terrorizing people in the name of God, creating a climate of fear was the monster.

I don't think the issue is whether or not jesus was sinister, rather I think it's a question of whether he is a real historical figure. Many of us don't think he ever existed, but there are others who believe he was simply a wise human being who was a basis for the fictional character portrayed in the gospels. At the end of the day you will have to draw your own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts oftentimes end up being just the 'accounts of people', history is not the same as science it is events that are recorded and subject to the whims of an individual telling the tale. Yes, much of the times there is more evidence provided, written records, archaeological support, other accounts that can validate the same story, multiple eyewitness testimonies...they would all be appreciated but are not always present.

 

Ugh - if it can't be proven, it's not passable as genuine history. Unless there is real, hard evidence for an individual bearing the name "Jesus of Nazareth" then it is likely he never existed. Believe what you will, but please don't confuse it with history.

 

I gave my reasonings as to why I see Jesus as an enlightened individual, I have seen nothing that would suggest he is sinister in nature. I checked over the sites you've listed, the way they are being interpreted and used out of context is the problem.

 

What is being taken out of context? Absolutely nothing on any of those sites is incorrect in the slightest. You can crak open any Bible (or Babble, as I like to refer to it ;)) and look up and of the verses mentioned, and find them accurately represented. The only misunderstanding is yours, in positing that Jebus is some sort of stainless moral hero :rolleyes:

 

eh, I used to go around saying that Jesus lied, the passages involving 'ask and you shall receive' used to bother me. He might have lied, if human then he most likely did since it is only human, whether or not it was intentional. I think there's more to the passage since it would be unreasonable for God to move mountains based on the whims of people. The impact that he had, the story of his life, there is nothing sinister about it. The stories of his life involved helping people, saving people, comforting those who were looked down upon, standing up for people who had no legal rights...he was enlightened. His actions do not suggest that he was sinister. But you can come to your own conclusions.

 

And you are free to come to your own conclusions. Whatever works for you, in the end.

 

However, the ill passages about Jebus are still there, in black and white. You may wish to cherry-pick around them, to find only the nice, fluffy bunny stories about Jebus, but that doesn't erase the nasty bits. The "impact" that the stories of Jebus are most sinister, indeed. Millions have died over the centuries just to establish the sick Xian religion, and you don't think this is sinister? Just because a few nice people cherry-pick the good bits and live their lives accordingly, doesn't erase all the blood and terror that was used to establish this demented religion.

 

Bottom line is that, if this character even existed, he was clearly a nutjob. Being nice one minute then acting like a psychotic cult leader the next - it'd be funny if people actually didn't think this jerk is real :(

 

And why would it be "unreasonable" for God to move mountains for people? Why should your god not be required to prove his existence and power if he requires our worship? Why should your god be given free passes for not lifting a finger to show himself or rid the world of evil or anything else?

 

Don't make excuses for your mythology.

 

The churches did create a monster, but Jesus wasn't it. Terrorizing people in the name of God, creating a climate of fear was the monster.

 

Right. Some god who claims to be ready and willing to answer all our prayers as soon as we ask them, threatens us with eternal torment if we don't consider him the "way and truth and life" and in all other respects acts like a jackass isn't a monster. Whatever :jerkit:

 

Certainly, the churches became their own monsters, especially seeing what they did (and encouraged others to do) in the name of their cult. But they inspired themselves with the monstrous stories of the wicked god found in Abrahamic myth. This "Jesus" of yours is most certainly that monster.

 

Good thing he doesn't exist :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many historians mentioned his name, the people living around that time believed that he was an actual human being, it's even possible that some of the writings were actually done by people who knew him.

 

You keep speaking of the historians who mention him by name, yet you fail to name them. I've been looking for historical evidence for jesus for 15 years (not really, I looked, there was none, and everyone else just keeps saying what you are saying, without providing anything to back the claims up). Early historians mention christians, but not jesus himself. They mention a christus, but not only is this way after jesus' time, christus was a common Roman name at the time.

 

The people who were living then who you say believed jesus was real could be characters in a fiction. We don't know that these people ever existed either. You cannot prove the bible with the bible. Obi-Wan Kenobi knew Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, so did Yoda, Mace Windew, etc. etc. etc. So does this prove Darth Vader existed?

 

And it is highly unlikely any writings were written by anyone who knew jesus because, as was already said, the gospels were written at least 70 years after the supposed death of jesus. We don't even know the names of the authors.

 

Please, find me some historians who mention jesus by name, I'd love to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't count Josephus so it doesn't matter, but as for everything else, I keep looking into it but I usually end up sifting through the writings of highly biased Christians who are out to prove Jesus, and highly biased atheists intent on disproving his existence.

Well, there isn't much more than Josephus.

 

Think about this, the historical proof of the caesars is much greater than Jesus. They have statues, coins and many books, from both supporters and non-supporters, all gathered together to show that the likelyhood of their existence is a fact. Now look at the evidence for a person named Jesus Christ. Think about that the name "Jesus" was extremely common during that time, even so common that there are a tomb (as you heard) with ossuaries with his name and a couple of name related to him in the Bible story. The name Christ isn't a name, but a title that was used even in the old Testament. Messiah is used several times in there, and the Messianic Jews waited for a savior ("Jesus" = "Joshuah") and got engaged in activities against the romans, Barabbas was one of those zealots. All of it comes together as a larger-than-life story, maybe based on one of these zealots. So I'm not denying the possibility someone called Jesus existed, since it very well could have been 10,000 with that name during that time. The question is if the Jesus according to the Bible existed.

 

Look into Philo of Alexandria, I find the story of him pretty much destroying the idea of a literal, physical, Bible Jesus.

 

Both groups are equally frustrating to me. Like I said before, it's not a closed case for me. Early Christians, and oral tradition is something that is hard for me to look past. Many historians mentioned his name, the people living around that time believed that he was an actual human being, it's even possible that some of the writings were actually done by people who knew him.

You do know that new cults and new made up ideas come into existence even today, and people fall for them. An oral tradition doesn't make made up stories more true. For instance, does Claude Vorilhon really tell the truth in his book The Book Which Tells the Truth? Did he really meet aliens? If he didn't, why does his followers, the Raelians believe him? It's after all a first hand account! Do you believe him, or his followers? I doubt that you do, and I wonder if you apply the same kind of skepticism to the Bible?

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence though, from you and Piprus too.

No problemo. I respect people that starts asking the hard questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many historians mentioned his name, the people living around that time believed that he was an actual human being, it's even possible that some of the writings were actually done by people who knew him.

 

You keep speaking of the historians who mention him by name, yet you fail to name them. I've been looking for historical evidence for jesus for 15 years (not really, I looked, there was none, and everyone else just keeps saying what you are saying, without providing anything to back the claims up). Early historians mention christians, but not jesus himself. They mention a christus, but not only is this way after jesus' time, christus was a common Roman name at the time.

 

The people who were living then who you say believed jesus was real could be characters in a fiction. We don't know that these people ever existed either. You cannot prove the bible with the bible. Obi-Wan Kenobi knew Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, so did Yoda, Mace Windew, etc. etc. etc. So does this prove Darth Vader existed?

 

And it is highly unlikely any writings were written by anyone who knew jesus because, as was already said, the gospels were written at least 70 years after the supposed death of jesus. We don't even know the names of the authors.

 

Please, find me some historians who mention jesus by name, I'd love to read it.

 

Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Philo the philosopher, Josephus, Lucian...

 

There are more, from later times so I'm assuming you don't want those listed. The two that I'm familiar with are Josephus and Tacitus. The Pauline epistles were mostly written before the gospels, just 25 years after the death of Jesus, their authenticity hasn't really been challenged.

 

What do you trust from history if characters mentioned could all be in a fiction? No one lived back then, who knows how twisted our version of history really is. There is a vendetta against Christianity, people want to disprove him they want proof that it is all false, I cannot trust the few scholars out there today if I believe that their sole purpose is to go out and prove Jesus false. People will see what they want to see. Most scholars think that Jesus did exist, I believe that it is more likely that he did and stories grew around him. I wouldn't try to prove the bible with the bible, but no one here is trying to do that, you can use the bible to support the existence of Jesus along with other text, and the fact that information of him must have been circulating around by word of mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jun, I’m also interested in Siddhārtha Gautama and his life and teachings but I wouldn’t call myself a budhhist because of it. I suppose everyone has a different definition of what a christian is. I personally find the trinity to be a central tenet of the christian faith and find it hard to classify those who do not believe in it as christians.

 

I guess so. :shrug:

 

A Christian to me is someone who follows/lives by the teachings/life of the Christ - hence Christ-ian. It appears these days that there is a new type of Christian emerging, one that IS ready to question the very book that introduced the Christ to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is being taken out of context? Absolutely nothing on any of those sites is incorrect in the slightest. You can crak open any Bible (or Babble, as I like to refer to it ;)) and look up and of the verses mentioned, and find them accurately represented. The only misunderstanding is yours, in positing that Jebus is some sort of stainless moral hero :rolleyes:

 

None of those versus show Jesus in a negative light, the sites are just obviously very biased and created by people who want a reason to dislike the guy. He did more good...why ignore that?

 

 

And why would it be "unreasonable" for God to move mountains for people? Why should your god not be required to prove his existence and power if he requires our worship? Why should your god be given free passes for not lifting a finger to show himself or rid the world of evil or anything else?

 

Don't make excuses for your mythology.

 

He's not my God.

 

 

The churches did create a monster, but Jesus wasn't it. Terrorizing people in the name of God, creating a climate of fear was the monster.

 

Right. Some god who claims to be ready and willing to answer all our prayers as soon as we ask them, threatens us with eternal torment if we don't consider him the "way and truth and life" and in all other respects acts like a jackass isn't a monster. Whatever :jerkit:

 

Certainly, the churches became their own monsters, especially seeing what they did (and encouraged others to do) in the name of their cult. But they inspired themselves with the monstrous stories of the wicked god found in Abrahamic myth. This "Jesus" of yours is most certainly that monster.

 

Good thing he doesn't exist :)

 

Actually I find Jesus to be quite different from the God portrayed in the OT. The OT God is a Jealous God and a God of war, Jesus is the opposite, the zealots asked him to join them but he would not. His followers tried to fight for him to save him but he would not allow the bloodshed. No, Jesus is no monster...he's far from it. I suggest trying a less biased site to get more information on Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Philo the philosopher, Josephus, Lucian...

 

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117)

 

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, aka Pliny the Younger (63 - ca. 113)

 

Josephus, aka Flavius Josephus (37 – sometime after 100 AD/CE)

 

Lucian of Samosota (A.D. 120 - after A.D. 180)

 

In this number, there is not a single contemporary of this "Jesus of Nazareth" - not a one. Dude, you are accepting that a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" actually lived based on hearsay? Come on, now.

 

Though you dismissed the website, I'll link to a specific page on it. Sorry, but

the facts are that no such character as you posit ever lived - and there is absolutely nothing ever written about him. Behold!

 

Now, you mention "Philo the Philosopher." Which one? There were many individuals with the name of "Philo" known to history. If you mean Philo of Alexandria or Philo Judeaus, (20 BC - 50 AD), he was the only possible contemporary of Jebus, yet I am unaware of a thing he wrote about Jebus. Early Xians seemed to like his writings, and saw in him a sort of "mystic Xian" but that's the only link I can find between him and Xianity. Could you be more specific?

 

And speaking of Nazareth, it seems like that city, too, is a fiction. It became real only in about the third or fourth century AD, and there is a serious lack of evidence to prove that it existed at the time it most famous resident is also said to have lived. Nazareth is just more Xian propaganda.

 

No proof for Nazareth, nor for the earth-scorching, animal-abusing, cult-leading misanthrope called "Jesus of Nazareth." None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.