The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

page: 27
43
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


Wow!
You're serious!

You actually have no idea that Josephus is corrupted by Christians?
AND - you REFUSE to even check ?!
Wow.

Any resource on Josephus will tell you that fact, even wiki :

"Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part""
en.wikipedia.org...

See?
The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that it corrupted.



Originally posted by Gorman91
How is Tacitus wrong? We have found titles of the man with his name, with is title.


I told you - but you keep ignoring it. He used the WRONG title.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

  • Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
  • Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
  • This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.


This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.




Originally posted by Gorman91
How do you know nothing to do with Jesus? How can you know for or against this statement?


I told you - you ignored it again.

Suetonius mentioned "Chrestus" - a common slave name.
Suetonius said he was causing disturbance in Rome in the 40s.
That is NOT Jesus.
Why can't you grasp that simple fact?




Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


Cannon? Boom!
Oh - you meant "canon" - haha.



Originally posted by Gorman91
What does it matter when Lucian was written? Plus I know not what his relevance is. So I cannot speak.


It matters a great deal - he wrote a CENTURY and more after the time of the alleged Jesus. But you don't even KNOW anything about Lucian - and you revel proudly in your ignorance.



Originally posted by Gorman91
Thallus and Phlegon I do not know either, so what is their relevance?


If you don't know the facts - stop posting ignorant nonsense.



Originally posted by Gorman91
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?


Wrong again.
NONE of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. That's the consensus of modern NT scholars. Not that you care about the facts.



Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


Hinduism has lasted much longer than Christianity - so therefore it is true - according to your stupid argument.


Originally posted by Gorman91
So um, where's your facts? Cause you just repeated what you claimed in long form.


I GAVE the facts.
But you keep saying : "I don't know anything about that".

When are YOU going to check the facts ?


Sceptic




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


That doesn't prove it was corrupt. That's people saying it was corrupt. but not even they seem to have legit reasons why. Again, in your own words, why is Joesphus a bad source. because you still just give statements, and statements from people giving statements. But not real proof why. Even saying it was mis copied does not deny the fact it mentions Christ. Still you say it is not a good source, even though you have not said why. Still waiting.

Up until the last few years there was no evidence Pontius Pilate existed. Then we found proof. So again, how does a wrong title disprove anything? People called Christ by that title since the time of his life. I see no reason why the Romans wouldn't state him by his name. Did they not state their enemies by their titles as well? A title is no different than a name in those days. So I fail to see how that makes it bad. Still mentioning it for the time period.

In as much as many Mexicans name their sons after Jesus I have no reason to believe why a few believers would not do the same. All the same, "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit", seems to be talking about a man with leadership, authority, and power. Now while it is certainly possible to be someone else, you cannot without a doubt claim it not to be Christ. The fact of the matter is that Romans viewed the lot as the same religion, and titles, as I said, were names as well. I don't think it coincidence that only 20 years later Nero unleashed his fury upon the community.

Hinduism has changed. Many religion shave changed. Christianity started out a certain way, and if you pop into some random protestant community in many ways it hasn't changed at all. The same actions and beliefs spoke of in Acts are the same actions and beliefs seen in them.

Now I don't think I have to remind you that you have yet to prove without a doubt Christ did not exist. And I know for a fact that nothing will prove without a doubt he does. So sorry to tell you, but you're at a dead end. So you might as well stop wasting your time.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


That doesn't prove it was corrupt. That's people saying it was corrupt. but not even they seem to have legit reasons why.


It DOES show it's corrupt.
Modern NT scholars agree it's corrupt.
For the reasons given on that site, and others.

The reasons you repeatedly ignore.

What a pity you aren't interested in the facts - the facts I described and linked to.
But you'll never even LOOK at those reasons - because they disagree with your faith.


K.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


I did not ignore them. I begged to question how they are corrupt and not viable for the reasons you listed. That's not ignoring, that's directly confronting. I could give you a long list of things that seem to contradict my faith and yet I think are true or sometimes needed:

Evolution, public execution, greed, war. Just to name a few.

So don't assume nor ad straws just because you cannot back up your case.

Still waiting for you to say why those reasons are viable to without a doubt throw those sources away.
edit on 3-5-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sceptic555
Gday,


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sceptic555
 


That doesn't prove it was corrupt. That's people saying it was corrupt. but not even they seem to have legit reasons why.


It DOES show it's corrupt.
Modern NT scholars agree it's corrupt.
For the reasons given on that site, and others.

The reasons you repeatedly ignore.

What a pity you aren't interested in the facts - the facts I described and linked to.
But you'll never even LOOK at those reasons - because they disagree with your faith.


K.
If the information is false (Bible) why on earth do you spend so much time and energy with it? Your like a sci-fi fan, spending time in fantasy land. Your faith is? Was does the '555' represent in your ATS handle?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
If Jesus was a real person, then he was a person with flaws like the rest of us. someone said that muslims kill those who dont convert, but then again God does the same thing to those who dont believe in Jesus Christ. Only difference is, one kills the body the other kills the soul for all eternity.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by notimportant
 


Jesus was a Luciferian!?? Hahahahahhaha I was going to stay out of this one but I just had to say thank you. Thank you for theuch needed belly laugh !!! Haha oh man, that is a gooder. Hahahah



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
If your religion has to threaten to burn you alive forever in order to believe in it, then that is a GIANT red flag, that your religion is BS and the authors knew it...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

notimportant

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by notimportant
 


Ok, you're right. They are a Christian group. With out even one member in the congregation that is a follower of Christ and his teachings. Yep true Christians. Open your eyes to your own blindness.


What are you trying to accomplish here? It's funny that you keep repeating yourself that they might be "not Christian" while their website (and other sites, documents and history books) says they have Christian beliefs and fundementals.

Maybe you should open your eyes, because it is you who is the blind one, and it's funny to see that you have absolutely no idea of this. How sad....


Posters to this thread talk about being taken in by the bull. If you believe KKK to be a christian group then you have been taken in. Many in their understanding of christianity are about as stupid in that regard as the KKK.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   

NZkraw1
If your religion has to threaten to burn you alive forever in order to believe in it, then that is a GIANT red flag, that your religion is BS and the authors knew it...



You should do more research. Most of the folks burnt by the church were people that tried to change it. Folks that tried to translate the bible into English so you and I could read it for ourselves were burnt at the stake or otherwise deprived of life.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Logarock

NZkraw1
If your religion has to threaten to burn you alive forever in order to believe in it, then that is a GIANT red flag, that your religion is BS and the authors knew it...



You should do more research. Most of the folks burnt by the church were people that tried to change it. Folks that tried to translate the bible into English so you and I could read it for ourselves were burnt at the stake or otherwise deprived of life.


i should do more research? yea im not the one denying history by saying that people killed by the church were "mostly people trying to get the bible translated". Oh, so in the numerous and widespread inquisitions thousands upon thousands of innocent people wrongly accused of witchcraft (even as young as 4 years old) and pagans or other 'heretics' were trying to change something that meant nothing to them? no they were killed because the church plainly just wanted them dead as they knew the whole topic of controversy was one big crock of it, they had their own ill say religion for lack of a better term at the current moment but mr bigot church didnt want their ancient knowledge around for future generations, so they were killed.

not to mention all of the numerous wars, deaths, families slaughtered just for some fictional jewish character? thats right i said it the archetypal 'jesus' was made up by jews in Constantinople - the true birth place of all right-hand religions. ive read the bible it took me a month after that i never wanted to be associated as a christian again. science dissproves everything about 'jesus' and the bible - god even anne frank was a little fake, moral of the story is... well you do some research and figure it out





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join