Do you believe in The Merciful God/The Most High Jesus prayed to on The Cross or another god (wrathf

a reply to: TzarChasm

And that's how I presented my view of Hosea and Gomer, an inspirational story. I have no reason to think they could not have existed just because the Bible says they do.

That's the point I was trying to make. To say they could not have possibly existed because they are in the Bible is an absurd statement, as well as saying they did exist because the Bible says. But that doesn't really matter at all, when have a record of their story and that is what matters.

Art History, yes, been there and done that. (I'm not uneducated as some other people like to think, not you though). Why is there an assumption that Christians are uneducated?

Marc Chagall instead.

However, there is outside, extra-Biblical documents of Jesus that existed in the same century. We still have those documents available today. I just presented in my post the writings of Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. He lived at the same as the disciples. His father lived at the same time of Jesus, so it would be reasonable that he did really know James as the brother of Jesus Christ.

And he mentions many people we find in the Book of Acts. Even the same incidents were recorded. We could never say that Josephus got that from the Bible, as the Bible was not in the form we have today and Josephus certainly did not have access to the letters to the churches, as he was not Christian, he was Jewish.

Josephus was an eyewitness to everything in the Book of Acts, he didn't get that information from the Bible or the letters written to the churches. He is extra-Biblical that says Jesus existed. You wanted an extra-Biblical source and you got one, now you are dismissing Josephus because of.....?

Josephus also wrote about the Jewish/Roman war and Masada. I think that just by mentioning James and Jesus, because he writes the fact that the Sanhedrin held the trials, exactly as the Bible says, then there is no Christian motive, because he was Jewish. But he was an eyewitness to the trial of James, the brother of Jesus Christ and that is what he called Him.

Not only that, he mentions Saul, as the person Saul was, which is Paul because Paul was called Saul before the conversion, and Josephus mentions what Saul did, just as Paul said he did. A non-Christian writing about the same man and the same acts, because he was an eyewitness.

But you could say "eyewitness accounts are sometimes flawed", yes, we could agree on that, however, it is highly unlikely because Josephus mentions the exact same events as in the Bible. That's a pretty good eyewitness account. Two books from different men, describing the same incidents with the same detail. I think Josephus counts as an eyewitness.

a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know what to tell you about any of that. my point was that taking inspiration from a character fictional or nonfictional is all groovy but offering your soul to them in exchange for eternal life is another matter entirely.

the difference between jesus and josephus, i guess.

a reply to: TzarChasm

hmmm..interestng question. i feel that some might see certain philosophes as being essential to the ssrvival of mankind. so essential that they ar willing to kill for it, by teachng others to die for it. thats some intense psychological crap there man. i bet the militry has a handbook out there somewhere that teaches you exactly how to start a religion. no better way to first unite, then weaponize. psychological warfare. kinda hard to believe it could last 2,000 years though. maybe theres a giant war they have been preparing us for. not a war between god and devil i mean a human war. yes, very interesting question.

Well that is a whole lot of speculation... especially when its just easier to just admit the man existed instead of offering wild theories on how he didn't

Even more so since Jesus preached peace not war... so he didn't weaponize anything... though the later versions of what Christianity became did I suppose... but that was hardly his fault

Most... IF not all religion has an agenda... glad I got you thinking a bit though

i havent? just google it. "human sacrifices made to gods in history" wikipedia will probably be one of the first five, cant miss it. allah ring a bell? or the aztec one huitsil something or other.

Sigh... and for the third time, we're talking about a man... Not a god

So I will stand on my statement... NO ONE dies for a man that never existed... It does not happen

maybe he existed? dunno dont care. the point here is that people do give their lives for someone who nver existed,

Nope they don't...

maybe jesus was just a simple carpnter. do you understand what it means to weaponze someone? what it takes to weaponize an entire nation? i freely admit this is just speculation but its an intriguing notion, its possible. has anyone done a study on this? gotta go look that up..

I already covered that... and the US government has been doing it for years...

and so has other governments in the past...

The fact remains... there is proof he existed from the writing of people that we know are factually historical people...

No one will give their life for a MAN that never existed.... Ever

And it doesn't matter if you don't like the proof I've given... There is plenty more, but im getting tired of this conversation... so believe whatever floats your boat

a reply to: Akragon

LOL, I think you and I are on the same side of the fence on this one.

The existence of Jesus is historically recorded, even by people who were not Christians. It's not like Pliny and Tacitus wrote it from reading the Bible, they didn't even read the Bible because the form of the Bible we have now was not the same as in their day, back then it was just letters floating here and there, used within the churches. They were compiled in book form later. And an interesting fact, it was the Christian method of separating verses and chapters that the Jews did later when compiling theirs.

In the old days, there were no verses and chapters, it was just all one big block of letters. I can see how that is difficult to read. It just made for easier reading and comprehension.

And people giving their lives for someone who did not exist....funny. That's like saying all the knights in the Middle Ages went to Jerusalem because they believed King Arthur was going to rise from Avalon. And yet there are people desparately trying to prove King Arthur existed.

But wait, didn't Heinrich Schliemann prove that the once non-existent Troy did really at one time exist?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The point is that the people that died for what he taught had the opportunity to save themselves...

They chose death by horrible means of execution rather then life with the thought of denying him

It simply makes no sense to do such a thing for a man who wasn't real

a reply to: Akragon

Well that is a whole lot of speculation... especially when its just easier to just admit the man existed instead of offering wild theories on how he didn't

i never said the man didnt exist. his acts and character however are worthy of scrutiny and skepticism.

Even more so since Jesus preached peace not war... so he didn't weaponize anything... though the later versions of what Christianity became did I suppose... but that was hardly his fault

Most... IF not all religion has an agenda... glad I got you thinking a bit though

perhaps not his fault, but certainly his responsibility. put a gun in the hand of a man and it is your duty to put him down if he goes rogue. thats called putting it right.

Sigh... and for the third time, we're talking about a man... Not a god

So I will stand on my statement... NO ONE dies for a man that never existed... It does not happen

we are not talking about men that never existed. the title speaks of gods, and some gods have taken the form of men according to lore. jesus may have existed but his divine nature is entirely debatable. it is jesus in the divine capacity i speak of, not jesus as a man.

I already covered that... and the US government has been doing it for years...

and so has other governments in the past...

The fact remains... there is proof he existed from the writing of people that we know are factually historical people...

No one will give their life for a MAN that never existed.... Ever

And it doesn't matter if you don't like the proof I've given... There is plenty more, but im getting tired of this conversation... so believe whatever floats your boat

chill out. i have already clarified who i was talking about.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i never said the man didnt exist. his acts and character however are worthy of scrutiny and skepticism.

I'll refer you to the second page... someone certainly did, and it seems that you jumped on that bandwagon... so I felt the need to clarify

Though you are correct... the miracles and such are most definitely worth questioning...

Good thing that they are not needed to understand or practice what he actually taught... that is the important part

perhaps not his fault, but certainly his responsibility. put a gun in the hand of a man and it is your duty to put him down if he goes rogue. thats called putting it right.

Not even... Jesus taught something totally different then what was taught soon after he was executed... the world can blame Paul for that one...

He added nothing but confusion to what was a very simple message...

we are not talking about men that never existed. the title speaks of gods, and some gods have taken the form of men according to lore. jesus may have existed but his divine nature is entirely debatable. it is jesus in the divine capacity i speak of, not jesus as a man.

Except we are talking about people dying and sacrificing themselves for what a man taught... and I've said several times, people simply don't, and won't do such things for a man that did not exist...

False gods have taken the form of man im sure... but the true God is not knowable by our limited meagre human intellect... Going by the infinite size and complexity of what we know of the universe... We can not even begin to understand God... but we can know what he's about through his son...

And what can be gleaned from what that man taught is that God is merciful, forgiving, and loving... which are not qualities the so called "god" of the OT has... even though he/she/it claims otherwise

Regardless of the miracles, and such that people have claimed about Jesus... what he actually taught is truth, and its testable and provable to be true... IF one lives their life according to what HE taught... they will see changes in their life

chill out. i have already clarified who i was talking about.

I am quite chill my friend... I don't come any other way

a reply to: Akragon

Not even... Jesus taught something totally different then what was taught soon after he was executed... the world can blame Paul for that one...

He added nothing but confusion to what was a very simple message...

and if jesus was exactly the man im told he was, then i blame him for not putting paul right at the first opportunity. at the very least it would have discouraged other false christians from pulling the same stunt.

Except we are talking about people dying and sacrificing themselves for what a man taught... and I've said several times, people simply don't, and won't do such things for a man that did not exist...

False gods have taken the form of man im sure... but the true God is not knowable by our limited meagre human intellect... Going by the infinite size and complexity of what we know of the universe... We can not even begin to understand God... but we can know what he's about through his son...

jesus the god, not jesus the man. i know, thats a confusing differentaton to make, but i think you understand what im driving at here. jesus as the god is what people died for, and im not convinced he was ever anything close to a god. superhuman? arguable. god? no. i dont know what a god is, and until i do, its safer to say he was simply a man in possession of superhuman talent or techniques who went public. so anyone dying for jesus the god is possibly dying for someone who never existed except in the minds of ignorant superstitious sheepherders.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know what to tell you about any of that. my point was that taking inspiration from a character fictional or nonfictional is all groovy but offering your soul to them in exchange for eternal life is another matter entirely.

the difference between jesus and josephus, i guess.

The primary difference between Jesus and Josephus is that Josephus actually lived and there is zero historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) proving that Jesus lived. It's high time that we start regarding Jesus as the fictional character he is.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know what to tell you about any of that. my point was that taking inspiration from a character fictional or nonfictional is all groovy but offering your soul to them in exchange for eternal life is another matter entirely.

the difference between jesus and josephus, i guess.

The primary difference between Jesus and Josephus is that Josephus actually lived and there is zero historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) proving that Jesus lived. It's high time that we start regarding Jesus as the fictional character he is.

then start a thread

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm



Josephus was an eyewitness to everything in the Book of Acts, he didn't get that information from the Bible or the letters written to the churches. He is extra-Biblical that says Jesus existed. You wanted an extra-Biblical source and you got one, now you are dismissing Josephus because of.....?

Josephus also wrote about the Jewish/Roman war and Masada. I think that just by mentioning James and Jesus, because he writes the fact that the Sanhedrin held the trials, exactly as the Bible says, then there is no Christian motive, because he was Jewish. But he was an eyewitness to the trial of James, the brother of Jesus Christ and that is what he called Him.

Not only that, he mentions Saul, as the person Saul was, which is Paul because Paul was called Saul before the conversion, and Josephus mentions what Saul did, just as Paul said he did. A non-Christian writing about the same man and the same acts, because he was an eyewitness.

But you could say "eyewitness accounts are sometimes flawed", yes, we could agree on that, however, it is highly unlikely because Josephus mentions the exact same events as in the Bible. That's a pretty good eyewitness account. Two books from different men, describing the same incidents with the same detail. I think Josephus counts as an eyewitness.

Josephus was not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and, thus, could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Moreover, the brief mention of Jesus sometimes attributed to Josephus was not written by Josephus. It was a church forgery written around 400 AD and inserted into the works of Josephus. It is so clearly a forgery that experts have pointed out that it includes language that was not in use during the lifetime of Josephus who was long dead.

You have a very imperfect understanding of what eyewitness account means. For starters, it means actually witnessing something not recounting a rumor.

originally posted by: Akragon

Name one person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. THAT would be historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) that Jesus lived.

The Gospels were not written until multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived. They were written by people who could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

Josephus, Seutonius and Tacitus weren't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living.

a reply to: TzarChasm

and if jesus was exactly the man im told he was, then i blame him for not putting paul right at the first opportunity. at the very least it would have discouraged other false christians from pulling the same stunt.

That might be complicated considering they never actually met...

jesus the god, not jesus the man. i know, thats a confusing differentaton to make, but i think you understand what im driving at here. jesus as the god is what people died for

Except the issue is, when Jesus was actually alive... and in the following few decades no one thought Jesus was a god...

That is an idea that came well after the fact...

and im not convinced he was ever anything close to a god. superhuman? arguable. god? no. i dont know what a god is, and until i do, its safer to say he was simply a man in possession of superhuman talent or techniques who went public. so anyone dying for jesus the god is possibly dying for someone who never existed except in the minds of ignorant superstitious sheepherders.

Well I suppose i'll give you that... people do die for superstition and or belief... even for ignorance in many cases...

You don't have to believe in the myths written about him... as I've said before, its what he taught that was important

Christians tend to emphasise his death as the most important part of what was written about him...

I point to his LIFE...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy


theres a difference between taking inspiration from a fictional character and going every sunday to ritually pledge your soul in service of the only person who apparently matters in the entire universe. we do not need proof of our ancestors because we arent worshipping them and demanding that society be remodeled around their ideals. i wouldnt demand proof of your jesus or god if you regarded them the same way my art professor regarded van gogh. an inspirational model, but by no means a singular phenomena.

Right you are. We don't need proof that we have ancestors. However, if we claim to have a specific ancestor named Bob Hoople who lived 1735 to 1803 we had better be able to prove it with contemporaneous documentation. Religious nutters want us to suspend logic and critical reasoning and simply believe them. Bottom line, they want us to worship them (the nutters) without reservation.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon

Name one person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. THAT would be historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) that Jesus lived.

The Gospels were not written until multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived. They were written by people who could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

Josephus, Seutonius and Tacitus weren't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living.

I don't know why this showed up previously as your quote. It's my quote. I apologize.

a reply to: Tangerine

Again... I've already given you the answer to your issue...

Paul was an historical person factually... Paul Met Peter and James "the brother of the lord"

I didn't say Paul met or witnessed his life... or any of the other people you mentioned

Please try to actually read what im writing

a reply to: Akragon

That might be complicated considering they never actually met...

because jesus, the miraculous resurrected necromancer/healer who sees the future and is son of god, is stumped by barriers like time and space?

and that was every bit as sarcastic as you can make it sound in your head.

Except the issue is, when Jesus was actually alive... and in the following few decades no one thought Jesus was a god...

That is an idea that came well after the fact...

i was under the impression that scripture somehow proves he was/is synonymous with god. another little detail that is apparently not nearly as absolute as people make it outto be i guess. hold on, i just recalled that the romans killed him for exactly that - daring to say that he was god made flesh and stuff. then he was told to say he was not god, and he did not for it would be a lie to do so. you probably recall these things better than i do, im not an avid student.

Well I suppose i'll give you that... people do die for superstition and or belief... even for ignorance in many cases...

You don't have to believe in the myths written about him... as I've said before, its what he taught that was important

Christians tend to emphasise his death as the most important part of what was written about him...

I point to his LIFE...

at least you now understand what i was saying.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know what to tell you about any of that. my point was that taking inspiration from a character fictional or nonfictional is all groovy but offering your soul to them in exchange for eternal life is another matter entirely.

the difference between jesus and josephus, i guess.

The primary difference between Jesus and Josephus is that Josephus actually lived and there is zero historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) proving that Jesus lived. It's high time that we start regarding Jesus as the fictional character he is.

then start a thread

The title of the thread asks if I believe in Jesus. My posts are on topic or are you suggesting that only cult members are welcome to post here?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know what to tell you about any of that. my point was that taking inspiration from a character fictional or nonfictional is all groovy but offering your soul to them in exchange for eternal life is another matter entirely.

the difference between jesus and josephus, i guess.

The primary difference between Jesus and Josephus is that Josephus actually lived and there is zero historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) proving that Jesus lived. It's high time that we start regarding Jesus as the fictional character he is.

then start a thread

The title of the thread asks if I believe in Jesus. My posts are on topic or are you suggesting that only cult members are welcome to post here?

i will begin by suggestion that you tone down the attitude and lower your hackles. this is not a dog fighting pen so theres no need to act like it. i will end by suggesting that you take your claim of jesus' existence being disproven and put it to good use by starting a thread or adding to an existing oneand contributing your data to the forums in a productive and constructive manner.

either way, i can sense your intent to be offended so i'll leave you alone for now. i do hope youll take my suggestions to heart.

a reply to: TzarChasm

because jesus is stumped by barriers like time and space?

and that was every bit as sarcastic as you can make it sound in your head.

He was a man... why should he not be?

All we have to go by is the word of a Pharisee on the issue of Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus...

Personally I don't buy it for a second...

i was under the impression that scripture somehow proves he was/is synonymous with god.

Scripture tells you he is one with God... John tells you he was God in the flesh...

Paul... Well I don't give a hoot what he said

Jesus said he was Gods son... Not God in the flesh... so it depends on who you believe

hold on, i just recalled that the romans killed him for exactly that - daring to say that he was god made flesh and stuff.

Well they misunderstood what he meant... You might notice even today Jews will not even type the word God... Any association with God is blasphemy to the jews... HE was actually executed for sedition...

But he did not ever claim to be God... he even denies it in Johns gospel

then he was told to say he was not god, and he did not for it would be a lie to do so. you probably recall these things better than i do, im not an avid student.

Son of God... Not God