The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

page: 26
43
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Reply to post by Extralien
 


The question is what do you believe ?? What do you trust your faith in god or not ? Those having faith will follow and those not will question! Simple isnt it !


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Soldier of God
While I will respect your beliefs, my belief is NOTHING was around before God.

Isaiah 45:5-6
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.


You're quoting the God of the bible, which very well may be Akhenaten's God and is likely the same Great Spirit behind the multitude of gods evident in polytheistic religions. But, hey... if you want to stick with the God de Jour, that's completely your right and I commend you for being open-minded.


I also believe in a Creator who made the universe out of nothing. Let's call It the One Who Bangs Big.


You make an interesting point...I have something you will enjoying reading: check out "Life" at waterofshiloh.com... and let meknow what you think.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Hi
First post



Originally posted by ffman
To suggest, at the very least, that Jesus was not a real person is - to use your phrase - "idiocy".


Many authors have questioned the existence of Jesus, because :
* there is no historical evidence for him (even where we'd expect it)
* the Gospels episodes are based on OT stories, not history
* not one single Christian claimed to have met Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter)
* the stories were changed by different authors - that's the sign of myths, not history


Originally posted by ffman
Also to suggest that the NT was creative writing shows your lack of knowledge regarding the history of the text. It was written by many authors from different times and locales.


So what?
You seem to be arguing that multiple authors means it cannot be creative writing?
Why on earth do you believe that?

Consider the Greek myths - written by many authors from different times and places - does that make them historical?
No way. Why do you think so for the NT books?


Originally posted by ffman
Many of the books were personal letters from church leader to church leader about struggles the churches faced - not "anecdotes" or fiction.


Exactly!
NONE of the epistles contain any historical evidence for Jesus - letters by James his alleged brother, and Jude allegedly another brother, by Peter allegedly a follower - yet none of them mentions meeting Jesus.

The Gospels were written by unknown people from long after the alleged events, who never met Jesus. Stories based on the OT, stories that only became knonw to Christians in mid 2nd century or so. Before that, no Christian knows any historical details about Jesus' life at all. No one even mentions the empty tomb e.g. until mid 2nd century.

There is nothing in the NT that is historical.
It's myth.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by ellieN
Whoever Jesus was to anyone else, He believed without a doubt that He was the son of God.


"without a doubt?"
How can you say that?
We don't have any words of Jesus - we have books about him written by unknown persons who never met him.

The first gospel written was G.Mark, and Jesus doesn't claim to be the son of god in that story.

As the Gospels develop, the story changes according to the preferences of the writer.

Plenty of room for doubt.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
One could surmise that perhaps ancient texts were merely done by well-paid bloggers/writers --- some very creative and plain kooky at times. I just don't understand how outmoded stories apply to modern thinking. Please let ALL religion go away asap! I don't like mine --- prayer groups, holy deaths, eternal hells, faith healers, glorious songs, heavenly salvation.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by dizzylizzy
The man Jesus existed there are many historical testimonies,


Well, actually - this is widely believed, but it turns out NOT to be true.

None of the Gospels were written by anyone who met Jesus, nor any of the epistles.

In fact we don't even have one single claim to have met Jesus - apart from the 2nd century 2 Peter, which ws not actually written by Peter.

All of the books, all of those early Christians, and we don't actually have a single testimony of having met Jesus - no-one ever said "I was there - I saw it myself - Luke."

Instead we have anonymous books which are later CLAIMED to have been by people who met Jesus.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by Gorman91
Jesus certainly did exist.


A lot of people repeat that claim.
Why?
Because a lot of people repeat it.
So:
A lot of people repeat that claim.
...


I looked at the evidence for myself - and I was SHOCKED! shocked I tell you - shocked and stunned.
Like the famour President's Brain - the actual evidence is absent !

The so-called evidence actually amounts to :
* Christian stories by people who never met Jesus
* Pagan repetition and ridiculing of those stories
* Later Jewish ridiculing of the wildly varying stories

Check it out for yourself - Josephus is corrupted by Christians and thus worthless as evidence, Tacitus and Pliny merely repeat Christian beliefs in the 2nd century, Suetonius isn't even about Jesus. Thallos and Phlegon have nothing to do with Jesus and do not confirm any astronomical connection to him. Lucian ridicules Jesus' stories in mid 2nd century. The Talmud has cryptic comments and later bizarre stories ridiculing Jesus.

Meanwhile modern scholarship teaches that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met Jesus - such as Ehrman, Brown, Schnelle.

In short - the evidence for Jesus fails.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by undo
and if you read paul's epistles carefully, the guy was nearly a hippy! i say nearly because some of his writings are like completely out of left field from what jesus taught.


Yup.
But you make it sound like it went like this :
1. Jesus teachings
then
2. Paul different teachings

When actually it went like this :
0. Visions of Christ
1. Paul's teachings
then
2. the various Gospels versions of Jesus' teaching

It started with religious people having visions of the Christ.
Then Paul had his own vision of Christ, and he started preaching that HE now had discovered the secret previously hidden in the scriptures, the secret and the Risen Christ, a spiritual being.

1 John is similar - the writer had apparently just had a visions of Christ and he wants to share it.

The epistles followed - none of which has anything about any historical Jesus. Not even the books of James or Jude, allegedly brothers of Jesus, mentions anything about being his brother or of each other.


Finally,
some unknown person wrote G.Mark, based on OT stories, and using names from Paul - a grand new religious masterpiece of literature. People loved it, others copied it. Eventually some 2-3 dozen Gospels existed, but Tatian inherited four important manuscripts from Justin Martyr on his deathbed - four un-named, but vital manuscripts, the "memoirs of the apostles". Eventually tradition filled in the names (from Papias e.g.) and finally in the 180s, Irenaeus was the first to name all four Gospels. One and half centuries after the alleged events.

It's religious myth.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by primus2012
Mark the Evangelist was a disciple of the apostle Peter. He preached, taught, and wrote his gospel based on what Peter (Simon) taught him. His gospel is thought to be the earliest with an authorship between 55 and 70 A.D. Not 120+ A.D.


So, not an eye-witness, even according to Christians ?
Meanwhile - NT scholars say Mark was an unknown person who never met Jesus or Peter.
His Gospel was the earliest, but is dated to around 70CE. Certainly not 55CE.
The others copied G.Mark.



Originally posted by primus2012
There's argument that Matthew (apostle) had written his gospel either first or after Mark's and based it's outline somewhat on Mark's gospel, but generally about the same timeframe as Mark's.


G.Matthew is largely based on G.Mark, but was not written by an apostle.
It was probably written around 85-90CE.



Originally posted by primus2012
Quotations from the Book of Matthew appear in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch; the 3rd Bishop of Antioch. He became bishop around 68 AD.


The writings of Ignatius are usually dated 107CE, but were most likely forged in the 130s. He does not name Matthew, but has some phrases that are somewhat similar.



Originally posted by primus2012
Ignatius was also a disciple of Peter (Simon, 1st Bishop of Antioch, the Rock on which Jesus built His church), and John.


There is no evidence of that. Neither Peter nor Ignatius make any mention of it.
Ignatius was supposedly martyred after writing his letters in 107 CE - much later than your claims.



Originally posted by primus2012
Luke was not an Apostle, but was a companion of Paul (former Saul the Pharisee and persecutor of the followers of Jesus before converting and becoming Paul). Luke was a learned man, a physician, scientist, historian. Luke wrote his book based on teachings from Paul and by his own research.


So, not an eye-witness, even according to Christians ?
Scholars agree that G.Luke was copied from G.Mark by someone who never met Jesus or Paul. Written around 90CE.



Originally posted by primus2012
Luke also wrote the book Acts after the Book of Luke was written. Acts is an account of Christianity after Jesus' death. Acts does not mention the deaths of James (AD 62), Paul (AD 64), or Peter (AD 65), nor does it mention the persecution of Christians by Nero in AD 64. So that's a good bet that the gospel was written long before AD62 and Acts was written at least before AD62.


No scholar agrees. Only the faithful believe the 62AD date. Scholars date it to 90CE or a bit after.



Originally posted by primus2012
The Book of John is written as someone who firsthand witnessed and heard the life and teachings of Jesus. There's argument as to who John was; John "The Beloved Disciple", John of Zebadee, John an otherwise un-named follower and firsthand witness to Jesus. Regardless, the book is believed to have been written during the 1st century within the timeframe that would've allowed a follower of Jesus to have written it.


Like all the Gospels, we have no idea who wrote it.
G.John is the latest written Gospel, it was rejected for years because it had been attributed to that dirty scoundrel Cerinthus. But then it became attributed to "John" (there are many) and if became accepted. The Gospel is the most variant of all - it has no sacramental last supper, it has the crucifixion ona different day e.g.



Originally posted by primus2012
There's ample web-research to be found simply by searching Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, New Testament, etc...
This subject is one of the oldest in existence. There's plenty of nay-sayer research and writings too, though I personally am not interested in their accounts.


With little effort you can find works by actual scholars, instead of faithful believers with well-funded web-sites.

Modern NT scholars have come to a consensus -
not one of the NT books was actually written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

We only have ONE claim to have personally met Jesus in the whole NT - in the latest and most obviously forged book in the whole NT - the 2nd C. 2 Peter.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wademus
Also roman records show evidence of followers of the 'resurrection' as little as 2 years after it happened.


No they don't.
That's why you didn't quote any such "roman records".

Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by Wademus
need to watch "The Case For Christ"


You need to read Jeff Lowder's review - he demolishes Strobel's silly book:
www.infidels.org...



Originally posted by Wademus
Far more evidence for than against. Over 95% of the bible has been archaelogically proven accurate and documented. No other book on religion can claim that. Its history, deal with it.


It HAS been dealt with - the OT is mostly myth : from Genesus to the Captivity.
About 95% myth. Just like all the other religious books.



Originally posted by Wademus
You all sputter around believing homers iliad is legit, did you know the oldest copy we have is over 1000 years old? Yet it gets to be considered legitimate.


So what ?
What does age of the copies prove?

We have ORIGINAL COPIES of ancient Egyptian myths about Isis and Osiris carved in stone - so they must be even MORE true than the bible - according to your theory.



Originally posted by Wademus
The bible is a collection of various works by different authors.


So what?
Why do believers keep bringing this up as if this unique feature proves the truth of the bible?

In fact every set of religious myths is a collection by different authors :
Egyptian myths - by different authors
Greek myths - by different authors
Roman myths - by different authors
Indian myths - by different authors
Chinese myths - by different authors

So what?



Originally posted by Wademus
There are 2 non-religious accounts of Jesus's life. One by a Jew historian shortly after his death,


Josephus has been corrupted by Christians - that's the BEST evidence - a passage KNOWN to have been tampered with by Christians.



Originally posted by Wademus
and one by a roman historian.


*Yawn*
Tacitus wrote in 2nd century, he's just repeating Christain beliefs.
That's the 2nd best evidence - a passage mentioning Christian beliefs from about 80 years later.



Originally posted by Wademus
Both of whom hated christians. Not to mention the gospel of Luke was written by a Doctor hired to investigate the events surrounding his death. Look it up.


Look it up ?
You just MADE it up !

There is NO evidence that Luke was hired to investigate the death - it's just more myth piled upon myths written about myths. This post here is a perfect example of how Christians embellish their myths by adding layers of more myths.



Originally posted by Wademus
As stated earlier. If you read the bible, and not just fall in line with what everyone else wants the bible to say, you wont have any questions. All of the little insignificant 'discrepencys' are just that insignificant/do nothing to alter the story or menaing and merely the difference in memory of events as recorded by 4 different people.

Originally posted by Wademus

In fact the stories are religious myths. They are at the same time, similar, AND different :

The Gospels are similar - because G.Luke and G.Matthew copied the text of G.Mark in large chunks.

The Gospels are different - because although based on the same core - each author tells the story according to his own prejudices.

It's clear from this habbit of CHANGING the story that the authors are dealing with myths, not history.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Hi


Originally posted by primus2012
You're mixing old and new testaments here. The case for Jesus is the New Testament which wasn't written until the 1st century. The writings and contents of the old testament are a couple thousand years older than Jesus.


2000 years?
No way.

More like 6 centuries, maybe some parts going back to 9 centuries.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Hi


Originally posted by markosity1973
No matter what you think of him, there are a few indsputable facts about Jesus:
1) He really did exist
2) He managed to really piss off the Jews and Romans and was seen as bit of an activist
3) He really was crucified by the Romans. Both the Romans and the Jews have records of this, but as far as they are concerned that was that.


No such records at all.

All they are is repeats of Christian beliefs, and reponses to them, from long long after the allegged events.

But believers seem to believe there are "records".
They keep bringing up "records" - someone even said from as little as 2 years afterwards!

In fact there are NO such "records".

There are simple later Roman and Jewish writers who mention or even ridicule the beliefs of Christians.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by torqpoc
What Jesus said, if he even said it, is up for a huge debate. The Bible is a prefabricated compilation of "Gospels" according to the chosen "Gospels" during the Council of Nicea.


Well, actually, that's not true, sorry :-)
It's an urban legend endlessly repeated on the 'net in places like this.

But it's not correct :-(
The CoN did not choose the books of the NT, they didn't even discuss the subject.
The canon formed from the 2nd to 4th century.

The famous Constantine bibles were still not quite like ours - it's probable that we have 1, and it's not quite like the modern bible - it includes Hermas and Barnabas.

Not until 367CE do we see the very first NT canon that matches ours - Athanasius.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


Pardon me.
That is not correct.
Or at least it's only PARTLY correct.

There are TWO main meanings of the word theory :
one boils down to "explanation"
the other boils down to "speculation".
(and another related meaning in mathematics.)

But -
you are insisting on just ONE definition, while ignoring the other.

If we search for your definition :
"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact"

We get various sites, one of which says this :
dictionary.reference.com...

–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
(3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. )


So what do we see?
You are using definition 2, and ignoring definition 1.

Definition 1 is the "scientific theory".
But a scientific theory is NOT conjecture or speculation.

It is an EXPLANATION for observed facts or phenomena.
Scientific theories explain facts.

Scientific theories are NOT conjecture.



Originally posted by Condemned0625
Not only is it something you consider to be a possibility, but it is also a theory. What harm does it cause to accept that it's also a theory? The definition itself clearly shows it. Yeah, I know I keep using the dictionary in almost every response, but you and the other guy keep forgetting the meanings of particular words and I just feel the need to educate both of you on things that you either forgot or didn't have knowledge of.


You made a fuss for pages and pages - but you used the dictionary INCORRECTLY. You found a word with 2 meanings and you misleadlngly used the meaning YOU wanted, while ignoring the meaning you DIDN'T like.

You are wrong here, sorry.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Hi


Originally posted by Condemned0625
No. It's not my newly defined context. I got it from the damn dictionary. By definition, your proposition is a theory. At least you admit that you don't know. Now we're done.


WHICH definition?
Please show and quote the dictionary site you are referring to.

Do you mean definition 1 :
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. "


Or do you mean definition 2 :
"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. "


You appear to be dishonestly, and deliberately, hiding one definition.
Poor form indeed.


Sceptic



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


Oh? And reason why? You see, when you believe, without evidence, that all sources to him are false, then you are no more right then the false claims that those claims are false.

How about this. Why are those sources bad? And it's well known that the gospels were written down after the people they are named after died. This does not disprove anything.

Fact is that somebody made thousands of people follow in his name. And where there were many religions at the same time popping up preaching many similar things, for some reason Christianity gained and took over them all. Reason why is very clear. Christians had a physical person with physical proof. Additional facts are of the Christian heretic groups that broke off but one generation after Christ. And they, too, have the same claims about Christ as those not cut off for thousands of years.

Now let me introduce you to something called academic standards. Statements must have proof. You make a lot of claims, but no proof. Just words. Get back to me when you can prove anything you claimed.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Gorman91
Oh? And reason why? You see, when you believe, without evidence, that all sources to him are false, then you are no more right then the false claims that those claims are false.


The evidence is clear, why didn't you check it?

Josephus is known to be tampered with.

Tacitus wrote around 112CE - he gets Pilate's title WRONG - this shows he is merely repeating Chistian beliefs of his 2nd century times.

Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" who caused disturbance in Rome in the 40s - nothing to do with Jesus.

The Talmud has various late stories possibly about Jesus, saying all sorts of bizarre nonsense.

Lucian was written around the 150s.

Thallus and Phlegon originals are lost to us, and they only wrote about real actual eclipses, nothing about Jesus - all we have is later Christians making claims about them.

That IS the evidence. Why did you ignore it, then ask what the problem was?



Originally posted by Gorman91
How about this. Why are those sources bad?


They are bad for the reasons I gave in my post above. The reasons you ignored. The reasons you don't want to talk about. The reasons I just repeated above. The alleged "evidence" stinks.



Originally posted by Gorman91
And it's well known that the gospels were written down after the people they are named after died. This does not disprove anything.


It proves exactly what I said! That the Gospels were NOT written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.
It appears you are now agreeing with me - great ! :-)

Fact :
In fact, modern academics agree that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

We don't even have ONE single claim to have met Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forged 2 Peter.) All we have is beliefs and claims made LATER by OTHER people. Such as the classic from G.John that "WE know his account is true"! It continues to this day - Christians make CLAIMS about people who met Jesus or met people who had met Jesus - but the original persons DON'T make the claim themselves! e.g the Gospels - not of them actually says that THEY were there - not once.

It's religious mythology.




Originally posted by Gorman91
Fact is that somebody made thousands of people follow in his name.


Fact is somebody made tens of thousands of people follow in the name of SCIENTOLOGY !
So what?
People believe stuff - crazy stuff - we know that. So what?




Originally posted by Gorman91
And where there were many religions at the same time popping up preaching many similar things, for some reason Christianity gained and took over them all. Reason why is very clear.


Oh please !
The reason is indeed clear - the Roman Empire took over Christianity, and stamped out the other faiths. Then the church ruled for centuries and burned anyone who disagreed. Sceptics were literally killed off.



Originally posted by Gorman91
Christians had a physical person with physical proof.


What proof?
In fact - no-one met Jesus.
There is no account of meeting a physical Jesus.
There is no physical evdience of Jesus.

Christianity started with the writings of Paul, then the following G.Mark.
Christianity is based on religious books.
Nothing physical at all.



Originally posted by Gorman91
Additional facts are of the Christian heretic groups that broke off but one generation after Christ. And they, too, have the same claims about Christ as those not cut off for thousands of years.


Pardon?
Some of the earliest Christian groups believed in a Jesus who was a PHANTOM - an illusion.



Originally posted by Gorman91
Now let me introduce you to something called academic standards. Statements must have proof. You make a lot of claims, but no proof. Just words. Get back to me when you can prove anything you claimed.


I DID. I checked the facts. If only you did it yourself.

If you ever do - you will find my comments above are all correct.
But I doubt you'll ever check - you'll just run back to your pastor for more ammunition, more preaching.


Sceptic



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


Once again.

How is Josephus tampered. What is the proof. What is the claim to this. What is the evidence for or against it.

How is Tacitus wrong? We have found titles of the man with his name, with is title. Very few evidence of him even exist, but it is known he was who he is said to be in the bible. What he says I don't care. Fact is what the bible says is what evidence says.

How do you know nothing to do with Jesus? How can you know for or against this statement?

Unless it is cannon I could not care what other books say. There's a good reason the Church got together to compare items of faith and see what was wrong or not. The process was simple. Majority rule, minority boot.

What does it matter when Lucian was written? Plus I know not what his relevance is. So I cannot speak.

Thallus and Phlegon I do not know either, so what is their relevance?

You speak of these people, but you do not say why not why not. You speak of nothing in the for and against. You have not added to what you claimed, you have just backed your unbacked claims with your own words. This is a logical fallacy.

The gospels were created by the men with Jesus. They were written down by those who knew them. The community was established amongst these early people enough for their authority to remain true. Thus the fact is that learned men had people write down what they said. At most one to two generations. There remains no glaring contradictions amongst them. So again I ask why the fact they were written by the named men's followers rather then themselves matters?

No religion based in lie lasts. Scientology never had many followers, and it died as fast as it was born, like so many other cults and religions. Even the religions before Christ was based off real people who were probably kings and queens in the middle east or India, made gods by their people who followed them. These people existed, though their names have changed many times over from whoever they were.

So um, where's your facts? Cause you just repeated what you claimed in long form.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thewanger
 


Yes, wanger,

You have certainly hit the nail on the head.

If people would live by the rules of Jesus, there would be peace and harmony.

Unfortunately, since mankind loves war, it will not happen.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join