Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Good input OM. Even though Josephus might have written about Jesus, we do have to consider that Josephus didn't live during the time of Jesus. Josephus was born 37 CE, 4-5 years after Jesus supposed death. So maybe he did write about the belief of a church that existed, and that only means we can trust that there was a church of believers. So where does it leaves us? First of all it leaves us with a person that wasn't an eyewitness, but he observed the church that had resulted from some events he couldn't substantiate. The power of the belief was not strong enough to convert him, but strong enough convert many peasants and uneducated that couldn't write their eyewitness accounts. No one doubts that there was a huge group of believers at that time, but the doubt is if there was a man called Jesus that also was the son of God. Next we have Philo that lived during the time of Jesus and even visited Jerusalem; a man being a philosopher and strong in theological questions; didn't write about Jesus at all. Perhaps Jesus did exist, but he for sure didn't gather 2000 men and women or cause the big gatherings of people and super miracles, or that the word of him going out in whole Judea (if it had, Philo and many other historians would have written about him during his lifetime instead of 40 years later). There for sure wasn't any earthquakes and dead people walking on the streets. Paul that lived during the lifetime of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, only through a vision. It is very strange that he makes no references to his life and time during the time Jesus was preaching. It is odd that he can't recollect any rumours or reference any events he heard about while Jesus lived. The only knowledge he has of Jesus was from visions and revelations, since he was proud and even boosted himself that he spent several years by himself, studing and understanding Jesus, without ever talking to the witnesses. He say that himself, that he left, and were gone, came back and started preaching without ever talking to Peter, John or any of the disciples. What kind of Gospel did Paul really teach? Let's say that there was a man called Jesus (which is not unlikely, since there are more records showing that the name Jesus was very popular at that time.) and he did teach some new and interesting religious ideas to a group of followers. It doesn't make him son of God, and it doesn't make him the savior, but only a teacher or prophet as any other before him. I'm game. I guess maybe the Lion's Den is not the appropriate forum for a civil discussion but I responded to this thread here so I realize now that people like to nit pick every single detail of a discussion here. I can talk here unless you'd prefer we do it somewhere else. Not familiar with this site yet so if you have any suggestions. We're a very tough crowd to please. After a lifelong experience of being told ideas and lies that no one made any effort to question, we have gone the other way: we question everything, even each other. We don't spend the time on this site because we want to find a new religion or try to get back to the old one. We're trying to rehabilitate and shake of the dust from the religion that corrupted our lives. Some had a really bad experience, and some didn't. But the end result is that we're very skeptic, and we will be nitpicking the Bible and faith. We ask the questions no one dare to ask in Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuryan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Next we have Philo that lived during the time of Jesus and even visited Jerusalem; a man being a philosopher and strong in theological questions; didn't write about Jesus at all. [snippet] Paul that lived during the lifetime of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, only through a vision. It is very strange that he makes no references to his life and time during the time Jesus was preaching. Before Spumoni moves the discussion to the Colosseum, I'd like to hear his considerations on these two facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Whoohoo! I'm getting famous! People are quoting me! Go ahead Serenity. Quote me as much as you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 so the last person to post was Hans, and reading this thread are Serenity and Open_Minded ... what good company I keep these days ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Feels a bit lonely here... maybe it's because it's Sunday. And yes, I can see Open Minded there. Message to OM. I like your style. Keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Good input OM..... Paul that lived during the lifetime of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, only through a vision. It is very strange that he makes no references to his life and time during the time Jesus was preaching. It is odd that he can't recollect any rumours or reference any events he heard about while Jesus lived. The only knowledge he has of Jesus was from visions and revelations, since he was proud and even boosted himself that he spent several years by himself, studing and understanding Jesus, without ever talking to the witnesses. He say that himself, that he left, and were gone, came back and started preaching without ever talking to Peter, John or any of the disciples. What kind of Gospel did Paul really teach? Let's say that there was a man called Jesus (which is not unlikely, since there are more records showing that the name Jesus was very popular at that time.) and he did teach some new and interesting religious ideas to a group of followers. It doesn't make him son of God, and it doesn't make him the savior, but only a teacher or prophet as any other before him. HanSolo... You won't get any argument from me... the most honest thing a person can do when considering the life of Jesus is to first recognize that the earliest writings we have of his life are based upon an earlier, oral tradition. Maybe there is a gospel Q, maybe there isn't. Scholars generally feel there is a high probability that Q was a written document - but it is also a written "tradition". There is a difference between "tradition" and factual history. Tradition may incorporate factual history, but it also expands on it with personal interpretation. This doesn't mean the tradition surrounding the life of Jesus are not valid, just that the tradition needs to be considered in context. If Christianity is to live another 2000 years, it needs to move into the future embracing archealogy and not fighting it. I believe it is possible for this to happen, many of today's top archealogists in this area are Christian. Many, many Christians are willing to go after the history wherever it might take them. On a personal level - I am fascinated with the archealogy. It shows a very diverse early Christianity, and that may be exactly what is needed to release Christianity from the literalists. Feels a bit lonely here... maybe it's because it's Sunday. And yes, I can see Open Minded there. Message to OM. I like your style. Keep it up! Hi Hans and Alice I was just going to post and saw your posts. Thanks for the compliments - I enjoy your company as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Heya folks, I wanted to do this for a long time, and today I began: I wrote up a quick collection of reasons why I'm not a jebus cultist anymore (and I've been polite in that text, considering what fundies would normally deserve). I plan to add to that simple little page in due time, but anyway... feel invited to take a quick read. And fundies who read this... feel fry to try and challenge me. As if I wouldn't know that you can't... Oh, right: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus >edited to fix hotlink kL< When I look back in amazement as to how the hell did I ever fall for all that fuckin bullshit bogus belief system for all those years. What was I thinking anyway. Between the talking snakes, virgins getting raped by ghosts, dead bodies coming back to life, a guy walking on water unasisted, food magically multiplying feeding thousands of starving people, 3 dudes walking in a furnace and coming out unharmed, a boat that housed millions of animals, bugs and dangerous poisonous snakes, the only way I could have believed in such bullshit was to put my brain on hold for all those years. The only way to believe in such things is to suspend rational thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I apologize if I have come off as a saleman. I have tried to start at the beginning of what I believe to be the first question in a dialogue about Jesus. As the author of this post asked for one to present reasons for believing in Christ, there is some degree in which it will come off as building a case. I simply am looking to start the discussion somewhere and the actual existence of Jesus seemed like the most logical place to start. Clearly, people have different opinions on existing documents and their legitimacy. This is new to me so please forgive me as it takes a while to investigate these things and figure out the reasons etc. I just don't want to get half way through a dialogue and have to continually go back to an issue I believe we dealt with earlier. It simply distracts from the conversation so I am trying to spend the time up front with certain issues that have been brought up. I definitely seek to learn as well because people raise good questions here. I hope I haven't come off as a know it all or anything. I am just trying to talk about what I know and will need to get informed on areas I am less familiar. Thanks Spunmoni once again. The reason why some of us may seem impatient(especially me) because we are making a presumption that most apologetics already know these FAQ. I highly appreciate that you are taking the time to do the research about the questions raised here. Do remember unlike christians we do read literature(eg competing Gospels) apart from the ones provided by the Church. So our knowledge will be more than most christians that you encounter. I hope you do enjoy our question, and I also dearly hope you don't consider us to be close minded "god-hater" As far historical fact goes, I would like to know why is there no historical evidence for the following miracle that was in many ways even bigger than Jesus allegedly rising from the dead. Matt 27:50-53 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. This incredible event, an earthquake, with dead people coming out of their graves(before Jesus rose) and then strolling into town after Jesus was resurrected, and appearing to many others, is a huge event. An event such as this would certainly be important enough to mention in the historical writings of non-Christians. Yet, there is nothing about it. There is nothing but complete silence about this wonderful and monumental event. If this event ever happened, where are those risen "saints" today? Did they have to die all over again? Even worse, there isn't one word about it anywhere else in the entire New Testament. Paul, who was alive at the time and who was in Jerusalem often, never makes one mention of this event is all his writings. Zip, zero, and zilch is what Paul and the other New Testament writers had to say about it. The author of Luke, who claims he was writing an accurate account of all the important aspects of Jesus and his death(Luke 1:1-4), says not a single word about this huge event. Are we to believe that this event wasn't important enough for the accurate historian Luke to mention? Why is this miracle is found only in the Gospel of Matthew? Christian Sermon to Skeptics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 It's done - I've now put up some few pages that even somewhat resemble a web site. Whoever might be interested is cordially invited to go and check it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuryan Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 It's done - I've now put up some few pages that even somewhat resemble a web site. Whoever might be interested is cordially invited to go and check it out Nice website, and really good essays you've got there IMHO, all you need now is just some funny exchristian-antichurch pictures, a more inviting layout, and maybe a logo. Maybe some pictures of Thor nailing Jesus to the cross... I'm not good at photoshop myself, though. Just thought it would be funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 I'm contemplating something along that line. We'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts