Pope proclaims all redeemed, even atheists.

Soul Winner

Andrewf20 wrote: »

This difference between believing in Jesus and say Julius Ceasar is that the Bible strongly implies that if we dont believe in Jesus we are going to suffer eternally in the afterlife, a claim that Julius Ceasar doesnt make as far as im aware.

No actually it doesn't, the bible states that only through Jesus do we have access to eternal life, in other words it was Him who opened the door so that God could get to us, not that we could somehow find Him through some kind of power we possess. If God exists then its us who are lost not Him. If the Bible teaches us anything it's that we are without hope because of our sins unless God intervenes. Now you could live your whole life never hearing about Jesus and God (if He exists) will take you on the basis of your simple response to the general revelation in the creation. He will never hold anything against anyone who has never heard the good news of Jesus. This is why Jesus condemned some of the cities He did miracles in during His earthly ministry. He basically said that the judgement will be harsher on these cities than on the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah because if they had seen things Jesus had done in the New Testament times then they would have repented of their evil ways.

The New Testament actual says that God has written His law on everyone's hearts, that's why we as Christians can accept (well I can anyway) that atheists can be good moral agents without actually believing in God. But that's a whole different debate which I can get into with you if don't agree that 'objective' morality can only be grounded in God.

But the point I'm trying to make is that Jesus was the actual door opener. And as such He is the door. If you make it in at all it will be through this door and no other even though there will be some going through this door that never even heard of Jesus, but without Jesus doing what He did on the cross there would be no door opened and we would all be lost forever, so praise Jesus I suppose.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Whether Julius Ceasar or anybody existed or not doesnt really matter, however christianity in general doesnt allow us to come to the same non believing opinion in relation to Jesus without suffering the consequences of an awaiting hell.

Like I said you don't actually have to know anything about Jesus before God will accept you. According to Christian Teaching God has already accepted us. He died for us, removing the punishment for ours sins by taking it on Himself. He has opened the door. To anyone who has the privilege to hear this good news its up to them to receive it or not. Nobody is forcing anyone to receive it. Its the Church's role to proclaim this good news to the world, not to convert the world. If Jesus is who He claimed to be then there is no other life apart from Him and He simply leaves the door opened for you and you either believe He was who He was or not. If you believe that He was who He claimed to be then taking the next step and trusting Him with your life follows logically from that. If you don't then you't don't, you are either right or wrong.

Soul Winner

ninja900 wrote: »

That just boils down to 'it's true because the bible says so' though.

Well no it doesn't really. You will never find a secular source recording what Jesus did and expect it to remain a secular source. The reason all the Christian sources that record what Jesus did are Christian sources is because that's what you become when you see the things that Jesus did. So of course you're not going to find contemporary secular historical sources confirming the events described in the New Testament. What we find in secular sources about Jesus is exactly what we would expect to find it them. Any references to Jesus or Christians is never really friendly to them, but again this is what one expects to find and this is what one actually finds.

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well no it doesn't really. You will never find a secular source recording what Jesus did and expect it to remain a secular source. The reason all the Christian sources that record what Jesus did are Christian sources is because that's what you become when you see the things that Jesus did. So of course you're not going to find contemporary secular historical sources confirming the events described in the New Testament. What we find in secular sources about Jesus is exactly what we would expect to find it them. Any references to Jesus or Christians is never really friendly to them, but again this is what one expects to find and this is what one actually finds.

You just don't get it do you? There are no sources that record what Jesus did - there are questionable and unverified sources that record what Jesus allegedly did which were written long after he allegedly did them by people who were not present when he allegedly did them.

Plus it is quite possible for 'secular' sources to record 'religious' events - in the case of Jesus these would be reports written by Roman officials which mention him.

As for 'What we find in secular sources about Jesus is exactly what we would expect to find it them.' - once again I ask you to provide contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus. Note: I specified contemporary.

You really are not convincing anyone of the validity of your argument.

kylith

Soul Winner wrote: »

No actually it doesn't, the bible states that only through Jesus do we have access to eternal life, in other words it was Him who opened the door so that God could get to us, not that we could somehow find Him through some kind of power we possess.

How is this God having difficulty getting to us if A) he's omnipresent and he created everything?

If God exists then its us who are lost not Him.

Well, it's hard for someone omnipresent to be lost, alright

If the Bible teaches us anything it's that we are without hope because of our sins unless God intervenes.

These would be the 'sins' that this god created, yes? How nice of him to decide that the human behaviours he created us with were evil and acting on the very nature he gave us buys us an eternity in Hell. Couldn't he have, say, not created greed or lust, since they're so bad. I dont' train my dogs to piss on the carpet for the express purpose of being able to punish them for it, so why did your god make it so that half the things he's programmed me to do, from menstruating to knowing more than some men, are sins?

Now you could live your whole life never hearing about Jesus and God (if He exists) will take you on the basis of your simple response to the general revelation in the creation. He will never hold anything against anyone who has never heard the good news of Jesus.

Reminds me of the story of the Eskimo and the Priest

Eskimo: If I had never heard of your Jesus would I go to hell?
Priest: No, not if you'd never heard of him, you wouldn't go to hell.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

But the point I'm trying to make is that Jesus was the actual door opener. And as such He is the door. If you make it in at all it will be through this door and no other even though there will be some going through this door that never even heard of Jesus, but without Jesus doing what He did on the cross there would be no door opened and we would all be lost forever, so praise Jesus I suppose.



Like I said you don't actually have to know anything about Jesus before God will accept you.

Bollocks. I distinctly remember the man being quoted as saying "No-one can come to the Father except through me". Therefore, by what the bible says, if you don't accept Jesus then no eternal reward for you!

According to Christian Teaching God has already accepted us. He died for us, removing the punishment for ours sins by taking it on Himself. He has opened the door. To anyone who has the privilege to hear this good news its up to them to receive it or not. Nobody is forcing anyone to receive it.

The attitude of the christians who periodically knock on my door would lead me to believe that if they could force me they would. Don't forget, it's not too long ago that the denizens of this forum would have been rounded up and jailed for not believing in the Christian god. Sounds a bit like forcing to me...

Its the Church's role to proclaim this good news to the world, not to convert the world. If Jesus is who He claimed to be then there is no other life apart from Him and He simply leaves the door opened for you and you either believe He was who He was or not. If you believe that He was who He claimed to be then taking the next step and trusting Him with your life follows logically from that. If you don't then you't don't, you are either right or wrong.

"If you believe that he is who it is alleged that he claimed to be", I think you mean. The bible being a second-hand reference at best; no better than hearsay or garden-fence gossip, we don't know for sure if Jesus actually claimed to be the son of god, if he never claimed to be anything other than a carpenter, or if he claimed to be a small tray of raspberry trifles. The bible couldn't even get the guy's name right, how are we supposed to trust anything else it says?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Plus it is quite possible for 'secular' sources to record 'religious' events - in the case of Jesus these would be reports written by Roman officials which mention him.

There are two credible Roman sources, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, who refer to Christ. Neither author refers to him as "Jesus" and the spelling of "Christ" is variable, but given the general reliability of both authors, I think it's safe to conclude that both believed Jesus existed, and both found him and the religion he inadvertently founded to be a serious pain in the Roman ass -- see the quotes below.

Josephus also referred to Christ on a number of occasions, but the text of each reference is not considered authentic by the majority of scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

BTW, the letter from Pliny who was, as the time, governer of the southern shores of the Black Sea, is interesting, incidentally documenting not only the relatively rapid spread of christianity, but also what would have been for the second century and within that region more generally, a relatively moderate and liberal policy which required citizens to pay homage to the Roman deities, but didn't prevent them from worshipping any other deities they chose to. Once christianity took over in the fourth century, that relative secularism and tolerance evaporated quickly.

Tacitus wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Pliny The Younger to the Emperor Trajan wrote:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny wrote:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Soul Winner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have several meetings and my uncles's funeral to attend today so don't have a lot of time to go through this in detail so forgive me if I am blunt.

Sorry to hear about your uncle.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A primary source is one that is contemporary with the events it describes written by a person with first hand knowledge.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all fall into this category. I have shown already that when we apply a little logical deduction and thorough scrutiny of the text we can place these writings contemporary with the eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Do I have to keep doing this?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A secondary source is not contemporary - it may be based on eyewitness accounts but the author themselves will not be that eyewitness so will be relaying 2nd (or 3rd/4th) hand knowledge.

Mark and Luke could fall into this category as well because they were not direct eye witnesses to the events they describe but they were contemporary with the eyewitnesses which is why they also fall into the category of primary sources. It is generally agreed that Mark wrote his gospel under the tutelage of Peter. Luke traveled with the apostle Paul and is regarded by archeoligists and historians as a trust worthy source when it comes to certain things like places,names and so forth. This from Wiki:

"Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography.[10] The preface of The Gospel of Luke[11] drawing on historical investigation identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.[12] There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.

"Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." It should be noted, however, that Ramsay makes no claims about the events described by Luke. Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is no primary source which refers to Jesus - never mind his alleged resurrection.

Please explain how what we have concerning Julius Caesar is a primary source.

• C. Suetonius Tranquillus - born circa 69AD - Julius Caesar circa 100BC
• Plutarch - born circa 46 AD - Julius Caesar circa 100BC

It is Suetonius who tells us that the War Commentaries were written by Julius Caesar. That is someone who lived in the first century AD telling us what someone in the first century BC did. The earliest known copy of which dates to 950 AD 800 years or so after the original, so we cannot be one hundred percent sure if its is an exact copy from the original written in circa 75 - 100 AD or not. But we have no reason whatsoever to doubt it. I could be really stubborn and say that just because Suetonius says Julius Caesar wrote it doesn't mean that he actually did write it, we only have Suetonius' word for that after all. But that would be silly. There is no reason to doubt this unless someone can show that Suetonius was wrong, that it was someone else who wrote the war commentaries and then to provide evidence for that. My point is we don't ask for this type of proof when it comes to secular sources of ancient history, we accept them unless sufficient reason is giving to do otherwise, so why can we not apply the same logic to New Testament sources for Jesus?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is a person who was (allegedly) executed in a very specific manner. A manner that was used for one purpose and one purpose only - to publicly punish those deemed guilty of treason against the Roman Empire in a deliberately lengthy and excruciatingly painful way to deter others.

Yes and this fact is even attested to by secular sources not just New Testament sources.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jesus (if he ever existed) was killed not for being an itinerant preacher but because he was considered enough of a threat to Rome that he had to be executed by the State - yet, there is no record????

Yes there is, this from Wiki:

"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.[10][11]"

But what was the official charge though? Can you find one in any secular sources? What was He guilty of that warranted a charge of treason? Not important enough to have record of you might say? Then this goes back to my point to another poster that if secular sources who supposedly crucified Jesus (and we have proof of that as shown above) cannot point to any particular crime He allegedly committed under their law its hardly surprising that we don't find secular sources recording anything else He did during His earthly ministry.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I said before all there is is a deafening silence from Jesus' alleged contemporaries followed by a deafening clamour by those who came after and sought to portray him in a particular way.

I've just shown you that we don't have a deafening silence, neither from His followers nor from secular sources.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quoting the Bible to 'prove' the Bible is correct - that is classic circular logic.
I could use the Koran to 'prove' the Koran is correct in the way you have used the Bible - would you therefore accept that the Koran is the word of God who is named Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet?

The Koran "is" just one book, supposedly given to Mohamed and written by an Angel. The Bible is collection of independent writings, written by different 'people' to different people and groups of people for various different reasons. Each one can be scrutinized individually and aspects of each cross checked with similar aspects within others, so no, its not the same as how one would approach the Koran, far from it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for Habermas' lack of objectivity - I think at this point you are not interested in an actual discussion of how the discipline of history works and why Habermas and his ilk have not met the burden of proof as required of a work of history and are seeking only to be confirmed in what you wish to believe to be true. You are in the wrong forum for that.

I've already answered this. Mr Habermas is not guilty of any of the things you pointed out. I showed you that in a previous post which you hadn't got the time (sadly in fairness to you) to reply properly to.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is no way you will ever get any true historian - or indeed anyone who is looking for concrete evidence - to accept his particular brand of pseudo-history as correct - any more than you will get them to accept David Irving's. Plus yes, if you are going to argue that the 'history' you are espousing is correct it would help your cause if you used historians to support your claims rather than theologians. In the same way as if you were discussing planetary movements you wouldn't be doing your cause much good by extensively quoting a marine biologist.

I agree and I have done just that in this post.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think Falwell and Habermas' religious beliefs combined with the fact that the college in question is dedicated to promoting a specific religious ideology is irrelevant and the latter is genuinely objective then I have a lovely bridge in Cork you may be interested in purchasing. I should warn you, it is a shaky as Habermas' research.

Attacking the man and his beliefs is as shoddy an approach to showing forth the correctness of 'your' view as you have charged him with, nay even worse imo.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

But what was the official charge though? Can you find one in any secular sources?

The text I've quoted above suggests that, on balance of probability, somebody called Christ/Chrest existed in the early part of the first century and was executed for treason, most likely for the crime of refusing to pay homage to the Roman deities or perhaps some other trouble-making activity.

Recall that Jesus was a jew -- not a christian, since christianity didn't exist and Jesus appears to have had no interest in being seen as non-jewish -- and the jews of the first and second century spawned a series of violent revolts every generation or two against the Roman Empire. In that context, an itinerant jewish trouble-maker, as Jesus was, would have been dead meat.

BTW, the Romans were no slouches when it came to reporting weird and wonderful happenings, as anybody familiar with Caesar, Livy, Pliny the Elder and the rest of them, would know. Given that, it seems strange, at least from the christian perspective, that no Roman author corroborates any miraculous stories at all.

The simplest explanation is the obvious one -- no miraculous events were reported because they didn't happen.

Soul Winner

kylith wrote: »

How is this God having difficulty getting to us if A) he's omnipresent and he created everything?

Rules were broken, pre-warned about consequences ensued. What can I say?

kylith wrote: »

Well, it's hard for someone omnipresent to be lost, alright

You'd think so yes.

kylith wrote: »

These would be the 'sins' that this god created, yes? How nice of him to decide that the human behaviours he created us with were evil and acting on the very nature he gave us buys us an eternity in Hell. Couldn't he have, say, not created greed or lust, since they're so bad. I dont' train my dogs to piss on the carpet for the express purpose of being able to punish them for it, so why did your god make it so that half the things he's programmed me to do, from menstruating to knowing more than some men, are sins?

Sin is the misuse of freedom. There are things we do in life which have consequences like theft, rape, murder etc. Its the same with eternal life. There are a few no nos. So in a sense you could say that God set it up so that sin could take place but that doesn't mean that He created sin itself. That's a free choice by the one choosing to act in that way. Or God could have just created beings that did His will like robots. But to get freely given love and trust He had to risk sin. But the good news declares that He has made amends for even that The door is open and all who are freely willing to come will not be turned away.

kylith wrote: »

Bollocks. I distinctly remember the man being quoted as saying "No-one can come to the Father except through me". Therefore, by what the bible says, if you don't accept Jesus then no eternal reward for you!

I explained this already, He is the open door. There is no other way back to God except through that door. This is either true or false. If its false then Jesus was a liar. If Jesus was being truthful then what else do you want Him to tell you? That He is not the only door?

kylith wrote: »

The attitude of the christians who periodically knock on my door would lead me to believe that if they could force me they would. Don't forget, it's not too long ago that the denizens of this forum would have been rounded up and jailed for not believing in the Christian god. Sounds a bit like forcing to me...

Well that would be forcing you and it would be in direct opposition to Christian Teaching. The apostles were told to simply leave any city or town that did not accept the message of the Gospel and to brush their feet as a testimony to those particular cities. They were not to force the Gospel on anyone.

kylith wrote: »

"If you believe that he is who it is alleged that he claimed to be", I think you mean. The bible being a second-hand reference at best; no better than hearsay or garden-fence gossip, we don't know for sure if Jesus actually claimed to be the son of god, if he never claimed to be anything other than a carpenter, or if he claimed to be a small tray of raspberry trifles. The bible couldn't even get the guy's name right, how are we supposed to trust anything else it says?

I think we can have confidence that the sources we have for Jesus have been scrutinized enough at this stage to be regarded as reliable sources. And in these sources Jesus does claim to be God, and yes they did get His name right as well, Emanuel simply means 'God with us' and that's what He was.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

There are two credible Roman sources, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, who refer to Christ. Neither author refers to him as "Jesus" and the spelling of "Christ" is variable, but given the general reliability of both authors, I think it's safe to conclude that both believed Jesus existed, and both found him and the religion he inadvertently founded to be a serious pain in the Roman ass -- see the quotes below.

Josephus also referred to Christ on a number of occasions, but the text of each reference is not considered authentic by the majority of scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

BTW, the letter from Pliny who was, as the time, governer of the southern shores of the Black Sea, is interesting, incidentally documenting not only the relatively rapid spread of christianity, but also what would have been for the second century and within that region more generally, a relatively moderate and liberal policy which required citizens to pay homage to the Roman deities, but didn't prevent them from worshipping any other deities they chose to. Once christianity took over in the fourth century, that relative secularism and tolerance evaporated quickly.

Ah but they are not primary sources for Jesus - they are primary sources for early Christianity which no one disputes existed.
We have no way of knowing if the 'Jesus' contained in the NT is a true reflection of the Jesus who may or may not have existed or is a repackaged to appeal to Rome and promote a certain religious ideology (no Jews here being one of them) to a Roman audience product - for example did Jesus actually say he was the son of god/equal to god/god incarnate or did the rebranders need to say he was a god to compete with the emperor/gods of Rome and have him accepted by Roman citizens? I suspect it is the latter but given the complete and total absence of evidence contemporary with Jesus which refers to him I have no evidence for that so it remains supposition.

This is the point Soul Winner repeatedly fails to grasp.

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your uncle.



Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all fall into this category. I have shown already that when we apply a little logical deduction and thorough scrutiny of the text we can place these writings contemporary with the eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Do I have to keep doing this?

No point dealing with the rest of you post as you still have not grasped the basic fact that the gospels you refer to are not verifiable primary sources.

If my cousin saw a car crash and told me about it some time later could I appear as a witness in court and give testimony about the car crash?
No.
Why not?
Because I didn't bloody well witness it!!!

How do you know the writers of the NT got their information from eyewitness? And 'because they said so' doesn't count unless you also accept that Elvis is the father of my son - it's true because I said so.



You will keep having to do this until you get it right or accept you are wrong.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

The text I've quoted above suggests that, on balance of probability, somebody called Christ/Chrest existed in the early part of the first century and was executed for treason, most likely for the crime of refusing to pay homage to the Roman deities or perhaps some other trouble-making activity.

Jesus specifically told His followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Paul in one of his epistles tells converts to obey the law of the earthly rulers. So what deed did Jesus commit that could have warranted a charge of treason which was punishable by death?

robindch wrote: »

Recall that Jesus was a jew -- not a christian, since christianity didn't exist and Jesus appears to have had no interest in being seen as non-jewish -- and the jews of the first and second century spawned a series of violent revolts every generation or two against the Roman Empire. In that context, an itinerant jewish trouble-maker, as Jesus was, would have been dead meat.

Yeah but what constituted trouble making? What was Jesus guilty of? According to the gospel accounts (seeing that we have no other to go on just yet) He was accused by the "Jewish" Leadership to be guilty of treason under Roman Law because "He" claimed He was a King. There is no record anywhere that He did anything other than this.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, the Romans were no slouches when it came to reporting weird and wonderful happenings, as anybody familiar with Caesar, Livy, Pliny the Elder and the rest of them, would know. Given that, it seems strange, at least from the christian perspective, that no Roman author corroborates any miraculous stories at all.

How could they if they weren't actually around to see anything Jesus did?

robindch wrote: »

The simplest explanation is the obvious one -- no miraculous events were reported because they didn't happen.

I think the obvious explanation is that something happened in those days powerful enough to make many people genuinely believe in a risen Christ that they were prepared to pay with their lives in horrible excruciating ways for it and fundamentally change the world forever. If that powerful force was because a false story caught on really well then it is to the detriment of our world but if it was because Christ did actually rise as fact of history then there is hope "for all".

Soul Winner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No point dealing with the rest of you post as you still have not grasped the basic fact that the gospels you refer to are not verifiable primary sources.

If my cousin saw a car crash and told me about it some time later could I appear as a witness in court and give testimony about the car crash?
No.
Why not?
Because I didn't bloody well witness it!!!

How do you know the writers of the NT got their information from eyewitness? And 'because they said so' doesn't count unless you also accept that Elvis is the father of my son - it's true because I said so.



You will keep having to do this until you get it right or accept you are wrong.

Well we don't/can't "know" or be 100% sure but we can be "confident" that with a little bit of research and scrutiny of the texts themselves that they were at least contemporary within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. The fact that they not only have knowledge of disciples but also family members like brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. This suggest a close relationship with eyewitnesses and not anything later 'strangers' would be able to record or would even feel any need to record. There are little inadvertent things like this that they include which give clues as to place in time they were in relation to the eyewitnesses. And given these kind of facts there is no reason to think they (well two of them at least) weren't written by actual eyewitnesses.

Delirium

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well we don't/can't "know" or be 100% sure but we can be "confident" that with a little bit of research and scrutiny of the texts themselves that they were at least contemporary within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. The fact that they not only have knowledge of disciples but also family members like brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. This suggest a close relationship with eyewitnesses and not anything later 'strangers' would be able to record or would even feel any need to record. There are little inadvertent things like this that they include which give clues as to place in time they were in relation to the eyewitnesses.

What material would you refer to in order to scrutinise the texts?

Just because there are mentions of the families of the disciples doesn't make it any more legitimate. The families could be entirely fictional.

Soul Winner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah but they are not primary sources for Jesus - they are primary sources for early Christianity which no one disputes existed.
We have no way of knowing if the 'Jesus' contained in the NT is a true reflection of the Jesus who may or may not have existed or is a repackaged to appeal to Rome and promote a certain religious ideology (no Jews here being one of them) to a Roman audience product - for example did Jesus actually say he was the son of god/equal to god/god incarnate or did the rebranders need to say he was a god to compete with the emperor/gods of Rome and have him accepted by Roman citizens? I suspect it is the latter but given the complete and total absence of evidence contemporary with Jesus which refers to him I have no evidence for that so it remains supposition.

This is the point Soul Winner repeatedly fails to grasp.

If Jesus didn't claim to be a King at least then what was He charged with? What did/could He do or say that warranted the death penalty under Roman law which we know happened because we have a really good Roman source for that.

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well we don't/can't "know" or be 100% sure but we can be "confident" that with a little bit of research and scrutiny of the texts themselves that they were at least contemporary within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. The fact that they not only have knowledge of disciples but also family members like brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. This suggest a close relationship with eyewitnesses and not anything later 'strangers' would be able to record or would even feel any need to record. There are little inadvertent things like this that they include which give clues as to place in time they were in relation to the eyewitnesses. And given these kind of facts there is no reason to think they (well two of them at least) weren't written by actual eyewitnesses.

That is all supposition, conjecture and extrapolating. It is not proof as you claim it is.

I have knowledge of all of Gráinne Ní Mháille's relations - does that make me an eye witness to events in Mayo in the 16th century?

Once again you are attempting to use the NT to demonstrate that the NT is accurate - do you really not see the problem with this?

To return to my car crash analogy - if my cousin who told me about the car crash also told me the names of the people involved and their aunties/uncles/dogs names would that render me able to testify in a court about the crash?
No. Because I still would not be an eyewitness and my testimony would still be hearsay.

The gospels are hearsay - nothing more nothing less and if you cannot accept that then there is no point in discussing the matter with you.

Soul Winner

koth wrote: »

What material would you refer to in order to scrutinise the texts?

Just because there are mentions of the families of the disciples doesn't make it any more legitimate. The families could be entirely fictional.

Yes they could be but what later writers would decide to include false family names of people who are not even the primary reason for writing the story in the first place? It just doesn't make sense that later writers would even think of including names like this never mind going to the bother of actually doing it. Just food for thought.

Delirium

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes they could be but what later writers would decide to include false family names of people who are not even the primary reason for writing the story in the first place? It just doesn't make sense that later writers would even think of including names like this never mind going to the bother of actually doing it. Just food for thought.

They don't know the names are false as they are relying on information given by other people, and probably didn't have the resources to fact-check.

kylith

Soul Winner wrote: »

Rules were broken, pre-warned about consequences ensued. What can I say?

I assume your'e talking about Adam and Eve. Those would be the people created without a knowledge of good and evil, yes? If they have no concept of right and wrong how can they, and by extension every single human being ever born, be held responsible for their actions? It would be like sending a 3 year old to jail for life because they ate sweets when they were told not to.

Sin is the misuse of freedom. There are things we do in life which have consequences like theft, rape, murder etc.

Also, depending on what kind of christian you are; dancing, having electrical goods, shaking hands with someone of the opposite sex...

Its the same with eternal life. There are a few no nos. So in a sense you could say that God set it up so that sin could take place but that doesn't mean that He created sin itself.

Of course he created sin. He makes the rules so he gets to decide what sin is and, apparently, it's half the stuff he designed humans to do; be greedy, envy other people, lust after that bloke on the telly....

If a god made us then he made us broken, and is trying to blame us for it.

Also, how the hells can you misuse freedom? It's freedom. Freedom is freedom; you can do what you want. You can't misuse your own freedom. I know what you mean though; you mean this:

That's a free choice by the one choosing to act in that way. Or God could have just created beings that did His will like robots. But to get freely given love and trust He had to risk sin.

How is it freely given if it's given on threat of hell? "Love me or I'll make you suffer for eternity" is akin to 'freely' giving a mugger your wallet so he doesn't stab you. Love and obedience given on threat of eternal suffering is NOT freely given.

But the good news declares that He has made amends for even that The door is open and all who are freely willing to come will not be turned away.



I explained this already, He is the open door. There is no other way back to God except through that door. This is either true or false. If its false then Jesus was a liar. If Jesus was being truthful then what else do you want Him to tell you? That He is not the only door?

You're contradicting yourself now. You said

Now you could live your whole life never hearing about Jesus and God (if He exists) will take you on the basis of your simple response to the general revelation in the creation. He will never hold anything against anyone who has never heard the good news of Jesus.

You can't say that God will take you even if you haven't heard about Jesus AND that the only way to God is through Jesus ESPECIALLY when even JESUS says that you have to accept him to get to God.

Well that would be forcing you and it would be in direct opposition to Christian Teaching. The apostles were told to simply leave any city or town that did not accept the message of the Gospel and to brush their feet as a testimony to those particular cities. They were not to force the Gospel on anyone.

And isn't it ironic that forcing the gospels on people is what Christians have been doing for the past 1500 years? And then they have the gall to complain that non-christians would like to not live in a theocracy.

I think we can have confidence that the sources we have for Jesus have been scrutinized enough at this stage to be regarded as reliable sources.

No-one has accepted that at all, apart from you. Even the gospels were written at least 30 years after the events they purport to describe. You really can't get less reliable than a second hand account written three decades after the event. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date)

And in these sources Jesus does claim to be God, and yes they did get His name right as well, Emanuel simply means 'God with us' and that's what He was.

His name was neither Jesus nor Emmanuel. Emmanuel/Immanuel isn't even a name, afaik, it's a word. His name, as far as anyone can decipher, was Yeshua (Joshua). In all honesty, you'd think his fan club would at least make the effort to get his name right.

Soul Winner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is all supposition, conjecture and extrapolating. It is not proof as you claim it is.

I have knowledge of all of Gráinne Ní Mháille's relations - does that make me an eye witness to events in Mayo in the 16th century?

Once again you are attempting to use the NT to demonstrate that the NT is accurate - do you really not see the problem with this?

To return to my car crash analogy - if my cousin who told me about the car crash also told me the names of the people involved and their aunties/uncles/dogs names would that render me able to testify in a court about the crash?
No. Because I still would not be an eyewitness and my testimony would still be hearsay.

The gospels are hearsay - nothing more nothing less and if you cannot accept that then there is no point in discussing the matter with you.

Hey they probably are hearsay but you have not proven (your pet word) to me that they are hearsay. I have given you good reasons to think that if they were not written by eyewitnesses themselves then by people very well acquainted with the eyewitness, acquainted enough to know their family member's names and written during the time the eyewitnesses were still around. I have had nothing back from you except opinion, speculation and conjecture.

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

If Jesus didn't claim to be a King at least then what was He charged with? What did/could He do or say that warranted the death penalty under Roman law which we know happened because we have a really good Roman source for that.

Sedition/treason.

Did Spartacus claim to be a king? No. Yet he was executed in the same manner as Jesus allegedly was...

Or perhaps Jesus was of Jewish royal lineage as some have claimed and therefore a 'king in exile' who was a focal point for Jewish resistance- but then that would blow the whole 'humble carpenter' thing out of the water and give Jesus' (alleged) actions a political dimension which had to be removed from the tale if Christianity was going to successfully sold to the Romans.

Soul Winner

koth wrote: »

They don't know the names are false as they are relying on information given by other people, and probably didn't have the resources to fact-check.

Why would they even bother though?

Delirium

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why would they even bother though?

What relevance is that to what I asked?

How do you verify the accuracy of the NT? What sources are there to confirm that the names/events listed in the NT are correct?

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey they probably are hearsay but you have not proven (your pet word) to me that they are hearsay. I have given you good reasons to think that if they were not written by eyewitnesses themselves then by people very well acquainted with the eyewitness, acquainted enough to know their family member's names and written during the time the eyewitnesses were still around. I have had nothing back from you except opinion, speculation and conjecture.

Sweetest divine :rolleyes:

You have given nothing but opinion, supposition and cut and paste's from biased sources.

When I conjecture - I state it is conjecture. I don't have a problem with doing that.

There is no conjecture, personal opinion or speculation in my statements re: what is considered to be a verifiable primary source for the purposes of historical accuracy. You have obviously never studied history as a discipline. It has rules. Very strict rules. I outlined those rules to you. If you have a problem with this - tough. Them's still the rules.

kylith

koth wrote: »

They don't know the names are false as they are relying on information given by other people, and probably didn't have the resources to fact-check.

Or they put in some names to make it more credible. "How could they be lying, they even put in his wife's name?!" It's a well known technique used by liars; make it vague, but put in a bit of detail so it's more believable.

Jesus specifically told His followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Paul in one of his epistles tells converts to obey the law of the earthly rulers. So what deed did Jesus commit that could have warranted a charge of treason which was punishable by death?

How much would you like to bet that David Koresh's followers would swear he was a lovely bloke who never so much as raised his voice?

Lets try this again: just because someone writes something in a book doesn't mean it's true. I can write a book about how I'm a member of the Tuatha de Dannan, and how I can fly, and do long division in my head, and recite pi to 4000 places, but no matter how many centuries pass, and how many religions my book spawns, it won't make it any more true.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah but they are not primary sources for Jesus - they are primary sources for early Christianity which no one disputes existed.

No, they're not primary sources. However, they are probably secondary or tertiary inasmuch as Tacitus and Pliny referred to Christ/Chrest as well as christianity itself, and I'm assuming that they had access to primary-source material of some kind. Those two authors do come across as primary-source kind of guys, particularly when you look at the second last sentence of Trajan's splendidly magisterial response.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

for example did Jesus actually say he was the son of god/equal to god/god incarnate or did the rebranders need to say he was a god to compete with the emperor/gods of Rome and have him accepted by Roman citizens? I suspect it is the latter but given the complete and total absence of evidence contemporary with Jesus which refers to him I have no evidence for that so it remains supposition.

I'd go with the latter too, given the need for legitimization and the lack of any obvious interest that Jesus seems to have had in setting up a religion which competes with judaism. An interest that would only have developed after he was safely dead and buried.

Soul Winner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sedition/treason.

Did Spartacus claim to be a king? No. Yet he was executed in the same manner as Jesus allegedly was...

Or perhaps Jesus was of Jewish royal lineage as some have claimed and therefore a 'king in exile' who was a focal point for Jewish resistance- but then that would blow the whole 'humble carpenter' thing out of the water and give Jesus' (alleged) actions a political dimension which had to be removed from the tale if Christianity was going to successfully sold to the Romans.

Its a good theory I suppose. The texts don't really say that He was a carpenter though, a careful reading of the Greek just says he was considered to be the 'son' of a carpenter. Plus if the theory is correct then the writers would have had to make up a lot of other stuff about Him which there is no evidence for in the texts themselves. In any case He is still presented as claiming to be a King not an idea the Romans would like really, also the Son of man (which the Romans would not even understand except to think that He just a normal son of man) and the Son of God. Is there any evidence (like there is for Spartacus ) that Jesus was guilty of similar things as Spartacus?

kylith

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey they probably are hearsay but you have not proven (your pet word) to me that they are hearsay. I have given you good reasons to think that if they were not written by eyewitnesses themselves then by people very well acquainted with the eyewitness, acquainted enough to know their family member's names and written during the time the eyewitnesses were still around. I have had nothing back from you except opinion, speculation and conjecture.

As I said in my other post, the youngest of the gospels was written in about the year 60, ~30 years after the alleged crucifixion. Even if they were dictated by some of Jesus' disciples (anyone know what the life expectancy was back then?) how reliable is testimony given after 30 years?

Bannasidhe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a good theory I suppose. The texts don't really say that He was a carpenter though, a careful reading of the Greek just says he was considered to be the 'son' of a carpenter. Plus if the theory is correct then the writers would have had to make up a lot of other stuff about Him which there is no evidence for in the texts themselves. In any case He is still presented as claiming to be a King not an idea the Romans would like really, also the Son of man (which the Romans would not even understand except to think that He just a normal son of man) and the Son of God. Is there any evidence (like there is for Spartacus ) that Jesus was guilty of similar things as Spartacus?

For the last time - there is no evidence bar the NT for anything for Jesus and the NT is hearsay written long after the events it describes.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

What was Jesus guilty of? According to the gospel accounts (seeing that we have no other to go on just yet) He was accused by the "Jewish" Leadership to be guilty of treason under Roman Law because "He" claimed He was a King. There is no record anywhere that He did anything other than this.

You perhaps didn't get time to read an earlier post in which I said that Roman Law required citizens to pay homage to the Roman deities. Jesus demanded that they shouldn't. As Pliny and Trajan point out, that's a capital offence under Roman rule.

Hope that clears up the crime issue.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the obvious explanation is that something happened in those days powerful enough to make many people genuinely believe in a risen Christ that they were prepared to pay with their lives in horrible excruciating ways for it and fundamentally change the world forever.

Oldrnwisr, far as I recall, did a great post last year where he pointed out that it seems that, even according to the NT accounts, nobody is reported to have died for the belief that Jesus had come back to life. And that's quite apart from the fact that the account was missing from one of the gospels and is quite likely an addition to the others. And that it's almost certainly completely made up anyway.

Soul Winner

Sorry guys, there are too many of you asking me different types of questions. Gonna get me a bit sun now and relax, up since early doing this. I will log back on later and reply properly and in turn to your posts. Thanks.

kylith

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a good theory I suppose. The texts don't really say that He was a carpenter though, a careful reading of the Greek just says he was considered to be the 'son' of a carpenter. Plus if the theory is correct then the writers would have had to make up a lot of other stuff about Him which there is no evidence for in the texts themselves.

Such as?

In any case He is still presented as claiming to be a King not an idea the Romans would like really, also the Son of man (which the Romans would not even understand except to think that He just a normal son of man) and the Son of God. Is there any evidence (like there is for Spartacus ) that Jesus was guilty of similar things as Spartacus?

Sweetie, you have yet to show any evidence for Jesus. Find us some evidence for that first, then we can speculate what his crime may have been, but I suspect that Robindch is right; he refused to give the Roman gods the respect they deserved under Roman law.

Sarky

It does rather sound like he was just another trouble maker that got executed just like every other trouble maker, doesn't it? The Romans are usually sticklers for detail, but Jesus apparently wasn't important or interesting enough to record other than as a crime statistic...

Brian Shanahan

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Pope is wrong. Nobody, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews etc are saved by their so called 'good deeds', only trusting in God's Word of promise is going to save anyone. That's not to say that people who do good deeds are going to hell, they're not if they are really doing 'good' deeds, because the only way anyone can do bona fide 'good deeds' is by having the the Spirit of the 'Good One' (God) in them and the only way that they can get His Spirit is by trusting (having faith) in Him, thus having the life force in them which produces the good deeds in the first place. They are something that comes from within not something that is painted on from the outside. God is always looking at the heart. Good deeds are the inevitable out growth of God's indwelling Spirit by faith. Too much time and emphasis is spent on having the fruits of the Spirit manifested in people's lives without making sure that they have the life force that produces the fruit in them first. Daily faith and daily faith alone does that and this is what is not being preached in 99% of pulpits today. The Pope is wrong and so is anyone else who preach that 'good deeds will save you' message. They won't, its a message from hell and not supported by Scripture.

Either god* doesn't exist or the ground you stand on doesn't. I'll let you choose whether you want to live or let a big beard in the sky live.

*I'm using the common name for YHWH here. Given what we know about the universe the odds of him existing are slightly less than me being offered the same contract as Wayne Rooney.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

My faith rests on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. If He didn't, then you are correct, everything I said in my original post in this thread is a load of arse. But if He did, then God is real, Hell is real etc etc. Why? Because He spoke about them as though they were real, or at least that is what is recorded as being what He said by people who were supposedly faithful followers of His teachings. So being one whom I believe is God and who is able to raise from the dead I assume He knows better than me or anyone else on the subject.

I never understood how Christians take that "logic" seriously.

Satan can raise people from the dead. Or at the very least he can trick others into thinking someone came back from the dead (and after all all we have is accounts by flawed humans that they think they saw Jesus after he was risen)

Why was Jesus not Satan or a manifestation of Satan just here to trick people into worshipping a man as a deity (breaking the first Commandment as far as Jews are concerned).

You can claim you don't, in your humble opinion, think he is.

But the idea that you can work out from what he did that he definitely wasn't, is just silly. All you are doing is ignoring a possibility that doesn't sit with the conclusion you have already decided upon.

Which just speaks to your need to believe this stuff, not any serious attempt that you made to rationally work this stuff out.

I swear to non-existent God if primary school just taught proper critical reasoning skills religious affiliation would drop to under 1% within a generation. This is critical thinking 101.

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Either god* doesn't exist or the ground you stand on doesn't. I'll let you choose whether you want to live or let a big beard in the sky live. Given what we know about the universe the odds of him existing are slightly less than me being offered the same contract as Wayne Rooney.

The ground he is standing on doesn't exist, or at least doesn't exist in the way people think about it existing. What we think of "matter" is largely "empty space" (which isn't empty but that's another story). Every atom in the universe consists of 99.9999999999999% "empty space" and even the "bits" that we think of as solid have turned out to not be so solid after all and a little difficult to track down. The sensation of "solid" is strictly inside your brain as is the sensation of the "pressure" you feel when you make contact with something "solid", such as standing on the ground. The sensation of pressure, whether its your foot on the ground, or my fingers typing on this keyboard, is due to negatively charged electrons repelling other negatively charged electrons, and nothing to do with our mental concept of solid. If it wasn't for this repulsive "force", you would fall through the earth rather than stand on it.

What is my point? My point is as John Haldane said in 1927 "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose". The more we have learned about the universe since 1927, the stranger it gets, which makes a mockery of your final sentence above. While a bearded man in the sky may be an unlikely scenario, given that we don't know what 96% of the "sky" is composed of, I'm wouldn't be overconfident in ruling anything out.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

It does rather sound like he was just another trouble maker that got executed just like every other trouble maker, doesn't it?

That's exactly what Pliny and Tacitus suggest -- that he was nothing more than a religious trouble-maker.

In a region, I have to point out, where religious trouble-making is just as much a way of way of life (and death) now, as it was then.

*sigh*

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

That's exactly what Pliny and Tacitus suggest -- that he was nothing more than a religious trouble-maker.

In a region, I have to point out, where religious trouble-making is just as much a way of way of life (and death) now, as it was then.

*sigh*

How ironic it would be if it turned out that the followers of a man executed for being a religious trouble maker executed every religious trouble maker they could get their hands on...

:pac:

nagirrac

The cruxifixion appears to be the most solid evidence that scholars have to try and figure out who Jesus was and why the Romans would have executed him in this fashion. Judea was a client kingdom of Rome with its own King up until close to the time of Jesus (one of Hedod's sons was running the place), but for whatever reason the Romans decided to install military governors around the estimated time of Jesus' birth, Pontius Pilate being one of the first. This could have been because of an escalating threat of Jewish revolt, it was not that long afterwards that a full scale revolt broke out in 66AD.

In terms of the crime Jesus committed to deserve the "ultimate punishment", it does appear the method of cruxifixion was used as a deterrant to others, so it makes sense that it was used mainly for those fomenting revolt (rebels as the Irish would say). Would the Romans really have cared about internal religious squabbles among the Jews, or a Jew claiming to be the messiah? There were numerous sects anyway, who one had to assume had leaders and teachers, and it doesn't sound like the Romans were persecuting them for religious reasons. If anything it was the Jews themselves who stoned the odd "false messiah" to death.

I think it is more likely that Jesus was seen as a political agitator. This would make more sense in terms of why he was seen as a threat and needed to be made an example of. There are quite a few references to taxes and tax collectors in the NT, perhaps the charge against Jesus was he was fomenting a tax revolt, something the Romans would have been very unimpressed with (the Romans were very good at collecting taxes). The reported incident in the temple with money changers (bankers) might have been the straw that broke the camels back and brought him to the attention of the Romans, as that would have been seen as a disruption of commercial activity.

Sticking with the NT accounts, a key question is why did he and his followers leave Gallilee and travel the considerable distance to Jerusalem?, and when they get there he instigates the incident in the temple, which was essentially signing his death warrant. As has been pointed out by others, it has an eerie parallel with the 1916 rising, a blood sacrifice of sorts. Perhaps he did know exactly what he was doing, and just like the outcome of 1916 his execution was part of the impetus for the later Jewish revolt. A revolt that turned out very badly for the Jews (but it was the Romans they were up against).

scidive

Looks like Jesus does not agree with the new "Pope"


Monday, June 3rd, 2013


"The other form of paganism lies in the practice of atheism. Those of you who are proud of your atheism and who may practice good lives, in that you are kind and loving to others and treat your neighbours with respect, know that the Kingdom of Heaven is not yours. I can never accept you into My Kingdom once you draw your last breath, no matter how this will break My Heart. If you do not beg Me to accept you and before you die, I cannot help you then, for I cannot intervene with your free will. Anyone who tells you that atheism does not matter is a liar. The Truth is that only those who accept Me and who acknowledge God can enter My Kingdom.

So many of you who live such confused lives, and believe that all will be well, have much to learn. This is why My Father has permitted The Warning to take place, for without it many souls would plunge straight into the fires of Hell.

Be thankful that the Truth is being given to you, for very few of my appointed servants preach of the dangers of the sinful lives you are living today and the terrible consequences, which they will bring about.

Your pagan practices will lead you to Hell. Your atheism will separate you from Me. Only repentance can save you. Listen and accept the Truth, distasteful though you may find it to be, and you will be given the Gift of Eternal Life – a life, which you crave for right now, but which will never be yours, if you continue to idolise false gods and reject Me, Jesus Christ. The choice is yours, only. No one else can make this choice, for God has given you the free will to choose between good and evil and He will never take this away from you, even when you choose the wrong path.

Your Jesus"

TheChizler

scidive wrote: »

Looks like Jesus does not agree with the new "Pope"

Link? Who doesn't know the definitions of a couple of -isms?

Turtwig

Of all the problems facing the world and its people that's what Jesus concerns Himself over?:mad: He can f*ck right off! Thank you very much.

Pherekydes

scidive wrote: »

"The other form of paganism lies in the practice of atheism.[...]Your Jesus"

Dear Jesus,

Can you tell me why you doomed so many to the eternal fires of hell by bringing your message to the people too late and too localised? Why did so many deserve to roast for all eternity just by dint of being born many thousands of years before you, or many thousands of miles from you? Couldn't you have brought the people your message at the beginning of the human race?

Can you explain the 'slaughter of the innocents', when your earthly da brought you and yore ma to safety in Egypt after a warning from God. Couldn't he have easily passed on the good news to the parents of the other boys?

Can you also explain why your heavenly da 'saved' the Jews by sending you down, only to deliver them into the hands of the Nazis 2000 years' later?

So many questions, but I'll think of more anon, like when will the Packers win it all again, but that's all for now.

Your doomed son/brother atheist[kinda confusing]
Pherekydes

Sarky

Dear Jesus,

F*ck off and stop bothering us.

Yours,

Everyone.

PopePalpatine

Sarky wrote: »

Dear Jesus,

F*ck off and stop bothering us.

(Up) Yours,

Everyone.

Fixed your post. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Credit where credit is due - this Jesus bloke's English is excellent for someone from the Middle East who died around 2000 years ago. There's hope for my Latin so. I should be bloody excellent at it around 4025 if I follow Jesus' example.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Credit where credit is due - this Jesus bloke's English is excellent for someone from the Middle East who died around 2000 years ago. There's hope for my Latin so. I should be bloody excellent at it around 4025 if I follow Jesus' example.

I dunno; he signed it 'Your Jesus' instead of 'Yours, Jesus'. I have to say that 2000 year old Jew or not, I'd expect better grammar from the so-called Son of God.

kylith

DP. Nothing to see here, except some kitties

Birroc

I so want to turn on both those taps!!!

Must be the atheist in me...

Turtwig

Birroc wrote: »

I so want to turn on both those taps!!!

Must be the atheist in me...

You do that and not only will we ban you, we'll ban your children, your children's children, your children's children's children, your children's children's children's children . . .:mad:

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

You do that and not only will we ban you, we'll ban your children, your children's children, your children's children's children, your children's children's children's children . . .:mad:

AND then we will hit you soooooooo hard your children, your children's children, your children's children's children, your children's children's children's children will all be born bruised.