Is the history of Jesus as indicated in the NT completely fabricated?

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: fishjie
i do it to offend you because i hate you. xtian. anyone who gets offended by it is the insecure one. xtian. lololololololol. its easier to type. chill out xtian.

and the whole christian persecution complex is bs. they always like to cry like they're the victims. lets review the facts again. the church has slaughtered way more people than rome ever did. today xtians hold the majority of power all over the world. the second catholicism became the official religion, they killed off all the other sects of xtianity - so yes in that sense many xtians were persecuted - the ones who didnt buy into the doctrine decided at nicea. but the persecution was from other xtians.

You know every Christian isn't Roman Catholic? Some are just Catholic, or Protestant.
Also, buying into the council of nicea didn't get you off the hook.
And I still stand by the teachings that early Christians were persecuted under Roman rule pre-Constantine.

 

[fishjie]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: fishjie
i do it to offend you because i hate you. xtian. anyone who gets offended by it is the insecure one. xtian. lololololololol. its easier to type. chill out xtian.

and the whole christian persecution complex is bs. they always like to cry like they're the victims. lets review the facts again. the church has slaughtered way more people than rome ever did. today xtians hold the majority of power all over the world. the second catholicism became the official religion, they killed off all the other sects of xtianity - so yes in that sense many xtians were persecuted - the ones who didnt buy into the doctrine decided at nicea. but the persecution was from other xtians.

You know every Christian isn't Roman Catholic? Some are just Catholic, or Protestant.
Also, buying into the council of nicea didn't get you off the hook.
And I still stand by the teachings that early Christians were persecuted under Roman rule pre-Constantine.

yes i do know. because the catholics fought the protestants, who then slaughtered a whole bunch of people themselves.

so show me the evidence of a widespread persecution movement against xtians. you do realize there were a ton of other religions out there during the time, many of them copycats (or you could argue that the xtian cults copycatted them, or that they all borrowed from one another). cults were no big deal. the only real persecution done to xtians was by other xtians. a simple look at history reveals this.

 

[Modelworks]

The Romans persecuted anyone that did not follow their religion of deity and idol worship .
Early in Judaism having idols was allowed and you can find many artifacts from the time period. But when people started following the new religion they destroyed idols and became defiant of the way the Romans practiced everything, from bathing to sex. One thing you didn't do at the time was tell the Romans how they should be having sex. Or even suggest that what they were doing in those areas was wrong . That is when the two cultures started to have problems.
The Romans were fine with it when the Jewish temples took up collections and the Romans got their share from it. But when those same temples started suggesting that things change the Romans would slaughter anyone who spoke out and burn entire villages to the ground.


If you want to know more about the persecution by Rome, read up on the life of the emperor Hadrian.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Bingo my rear.

Look You guys that actually have a clue . I help ya. Google does nice work .

Here is a Mans name that didn't get into the Big Book He is mentioned a few times but thats about it. First tri to find some of the missing Gosphels. It will help you a lot on this 6 day bolony. Era is mentioned many many times. ERA = 1,000,000 years as we know time today!

ANYbody afraid not to learn don't read what this man wrote Stay ignorant.

Enoch is that Guy. Find out who he is. Read what he wrote and you will understand clearly why his books didn't make it.

Crack kills.

 

[Freshgeardude]

what bothers me more is that a a jewish man who was a preacher of judiaism, died as a jew by crusefixtion, by the romans, then years later the romans said jews killed him because they wanted to follow the religion and persecuted jews because of it.

sorry spelling ona phone

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: fishjie

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: fishjie
i do it to offend you because i hate you. xtian. anyone who gets offended by it is the insecure one. xtian. lololololololol. its easier to type. chill out xtian.

and the whole christian persecution complex is bs. they always like to cry like they're the victims. lets review the facts again. the church has slaughtered way more people than rome ever did. today xtians hold the majority of power all over the world. the second catholicism became the official religion, they killed off all the other sects of xtianity - so yes in that sense many xtians were persecuted - the ones who didnt buy into the doctrine decided at nicea. but the persecution was from other xtians.

You know every Christian isn't Roman Catholic? Some are just Catholic, or Protestant.
Also, buying into the council of nicea didn't get you off the hook.
And I still stand by the teachings that early Christians were persecuted under Roman rule pre-Constantine.

yes i do know. because the catholics fought the protestants, who then slaughtered a whole bunch of people themselves.

so show me the evidence of a widespread persecution movement against xtians. you do realize there were a ton of other religions out there during the time, many of them copycats (or you could argue that the xtian cults copycatted them, or that they all borrowed from one another). cults were no big deal. the only real persecution done to xtians was by other xtians. a simple look at history reveals this.

Wait, you seriously think Rome did not persecute early Christians?
What do you call it, just toying with them?
Christians always faced persecution, whether it was by non Christians, Holy Roman Empire, or what have you.
And you still think that the only Christians are Roman Catholic or Protestant?
Seriously.
I think you put the statement "a simple look at history" into glossing over some important things that got you into this line of thinking. That is, you are discounting stuff that is relevant, but you choose to ignore it.

--edit--Here is one of the many examples of someone who did.
Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus
If you want to gloss this one over, I don't know that to say except for the fact you must be really hell bent at Christianity. To the point where hatred is clouding up a bunch of things.

 

[Caveman]

A little info for those seeking truth...

The timespan between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 could be trillions of years. The RE-creation spoken of in Gen 1:2 occurs after the earth becomes without form and void...

The time period starting from v1:2 to the end of Revelation covers ~7000 years.

The is virtually nothing said in the bible about the Pre-Adamic time period before creation and the recreation.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: fishjie
ah, so you accept books not in the bible canon? their teachers are heretical. they make the contradictions in the bible even more exponential. now in addition to the contradictions in the canon, you also have contradictions in non canon books, and cross contradictions between the two. NICE!

You just don't get it man. Ceasar is the corner stone of your church. THE Viirgin birth . The reserrection. Al tho tru events they take away as desract from the trueth . Which is the Living Word. The Gosphel of Jesus Christ Is the only new testament that matters . Everthing in the canonized church That Ceasar Constine set up. Is this the foundation of our faith the cHrist died and than rose for our sins. Is it the virgin conception? These things only server to distract from the WORDS OF WISDOM The Living Word. You think its not by design! To do that very thing? THE WORDS oF CHRIST is all that matters we knowt that . Yet we ignor the words . Ya should read what Christ says that your willing to read. more than whats in the Bible. Read Enoch he sets time for the destruction of the templo He got it right to. , He also spoke of Christ he also said that in the final days many many many shall be become apostate generation.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

5. Someone who ceaselessly annoys you with long-winded bouts of atrocious spelling and general cluelessness.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Sure Jesus existed.

But did he split a few fish and loaves of bread to feed thousands? Questionable. Did he touch lepers and miraculously heal them?
It is widely accepted among biblical scholars that NO he did not split a few fishes and loaves......the miracle that tyook place was one of humans sharing what they had with each other and with those who had notrhing at all to eat. That in and of itself is a miracle if you think about it....
The rest we need to understand that modern day science can enable ablind man to see...etc..etc.....
Dubious. Did he touch the eyes of blind men and give them their sight back? Unlikely. Did he turn water into wine? (this would be the most awesome party trick in the history of time, btw) Probably not.

Or, from a less micro perspective, did an invisible man in the sky divinely rape a woman, who then gave virgin birth to a man-god (husband was totally cool with this, btw. "Don't worry, it's God's child!" "Oh okay, then it's cool") who eventually was executed, entombed, rose from the dead three days later, then floated upwards into the sky and disappeared? Whether you believe this or not will probably factor into your eventual arrival at an answer for yourself.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: fishjie
no the bible is highly inaccurate as a historical tool. it contains tons of anachronisms, the archaeological evidence does NOT back it up, and there are tons of miracles in there. read the bible unearthed to see how archaeology shows that there was no exodus, no wandering for 40 years in sinai, how david and solomon's kingdoms were tiny and weak, and so on.

You are wrong!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Other than writing, there is not one piece of physical evidence Jesus even existed at all.

CSI much?

I have never ever seen, nor will I, over 10 seconds of this show at a time.

Has my pointing out of this fact offended you in some way?

No, but it's wrong. There's lots of historical documents about Jesus. There are Roman records of his execution, there has been pottery with inscriptions of him, there are paintings from the era depicting him...not sure where you got this idea that there is no evidence he existed.

However, the miracles (water to wine, healing, etc) don't have much proof behind them. They could be exaggerations, fables, or even made up situations. A recent piece of pottery found has an inscription "Jesus the Magician" (or Trickster) on it...meaning he may have been known as a mystical person at the time.

Can you point to some of this evidence? Link to pictures? Scholarly articles from non theistic sources?

The sources are listed in the second half of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Also, when you say non-theistic sources, you're saying it like the bible can't be used as a historical tool. The bible is actually fairly accurate in it's deprecations of life and history at the time from a non-religious stand point. It's no different of a tool than archeologists learning about an Egyptian king through hieroglyphics found on a cave wall...they don't take them literally, but get an idea of what happened at the time.

The bible has things in it which are KNOWN to be inaccurate. You can use the bible as a document to tell you what to look for, but the bible itself is absolutely not evidence for anything actually being real. Any claim otherwise is fallacious at best, and possibly intentionally disingenuous. To put it in scientific terms, the bible can be your hypothesis, but it can never be your experimental results.

Links to back up your diatribe.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Believe it or not, Christian sources of evidence have as much credibility as secular. So don't shun them. Let the evidence speak for itself.

Um, no. In any case of argument, evidence that is only supported by those who would benefit from it should not be automatically trusted.

Um Noo.....Secular sources of evidence have as much credibility as religious. So don't shun them. Let the evidence speak for itself. [/quote]Um, no. In any case of argument, evidence that is only supported by those who would benefit from it should not be automatically trusted.[/quote]

 

[Modelworks]

Another favorite thing for Roman Emperors was to cover Christians with tar and hang them from post around the perimeter of a celebration at night.
They would light them on fire, while they were still alive, and use them for lighting for the event.

Of course throwing Christians to the lions was also a favorite sport.