Thousands trace Jesus' footsteps on Good Friday in Jerusalem

[Bobotie]

And always shown as a good looking white guy

yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The names where anglcised from the greek translations of their yiddish names...think its Mathew whose real name we would know as Levi, and a tax collector to boot

[Fookhaht]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

The earlier manuscript to which I referred made worldwide news, published in many relevant and contemporary news magazines and scholarly journals throughout the world. Sorry you missed it.

Bloviator? Another mark is to start misquoting the opposition--which you've now done twice. Your exaggerated posting stops this discussion dead in it's tracks.

Do your own homework friend

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Bobotie]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

Wow.

Religion-bashing thread by only the second post (and ff.).

Predictable.

Nothing to see here, folks; now move along...

You forgot to threaten to kill him, or at the very least state he was going to burn in hell...lets have a nice adult debate without threats of fire and Brimstone shall we

Not religion bashing in the least ....debate been some very interesting stuff to date so dont spoil it now

[Fookhaht]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

Wow.

Religion-bashing thread by only the second post (and ff.).

Predictable.

Nothing to see here, folks; now move along...

You forgot to threaten to kill him, or at the very least state he was going to burn in hell...lets have a nice adult debate without threats of fire and Brimstone shall we

Wow. You're the one who brought up Hell. Don't lay that on me. Did you have a bad experience with a Sunday School teacher? A Bible-thumping aunt with a bun on her head?

Over-the-top post.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[stillbornagain]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

The earlier manuscript to which I referred made worldwide news, published in many relevant and contemporary news magazines and scholarly journals throughout the world. Sorry you missed it.

Bloviator? Another mark is to start misquoting the opposition--which you've now done twice. Your exaggerated posting stops this discussion dead in it's tracks.

Do your own homework friend

Nice piece of bloviation. A huge piece of news like this and nowhere to be found on the internet. That sounds likely. You've been caught and that's the best you can do. It doesn't exist and you just made it up. That's obvious.

And what exaggeration? You claimed Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. You can run away now.

[Fookhaht]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

The earlier manuscript to which I referred made worldwide news, published in many relevant and contemporary news magazines and scholarly journals throughout the world. Sorry you missed it.

Bloviator? Another mark is to start misquoting the opposition--which you've now done twice. Your exaggerated posting stops this discussion dead in it's tracks.

Do your own homework friend

Nice piece of bloviation. A huge piece of news like this and nowhere to be found on the internet. That sounds likely. You've been caught and that's the best you can do. It doesn't exist and you just made it up. That's obvious.

And what exaggeration? You claimed Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. You can run away now.

. My students make the same kind of protests when they don't do their homework. They also misquote me to make their point. You're m.o. is old and tired.

[Bobotie]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

The earlier manuscript to which I referred made worldwide news, published in many relevant and contemporary news magazines and scholarly journals throughout the world. Sorry you missed it.

Bloviator? Another mark is to start misquoting the opposition--which you've now done twice. Your exaggerated posting stops this discussion dead in it's tracks.

Do your own homework friend

Are you referring to the reputed fragement found in the egyptian mummy mask ?....the fragment that was reputably found in 2012, and hasnt been seen by anyone except the person who claims to have found it ?, the same fragment where the publication on this so called early fragment was promised in 2013, then changed to 2015 and recently now pushed out to 2017....until the claims made by this reasearch team came be independently verified...this fragment, if it even exists is irrelevant

Could i suggest you do your homework

[Scott]

Some of you are not being very Christian in this thread.

I suggest you stop bickering and stay on topic.

[Bobotie]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

Josephus wasnt even born when JC was reported to have been executed..be was born some 29 years after the fact, so not a comtemporary

[Yunla]

Great script for a hollywood B movie.

The truth is that real life is far more thrilling than any movie ever.

And the religious experience, at its most primary and personal level, has more dazzling special effects than the biggest Hollywood blockbuster. The joy, wonder that lies within deep prayer, is more exciting than the greatest rollercoaster. No drugs or other human pleasure experiences can ever match the sheer thrills of witnessing the divine origins of our human soul.

This is what has been lost to us, with all the religious buildings, dogma, men in funny costumes, and quite frankly Religious Politics. Underneath all those things, there exists a direct link between all human beings and God, a divine visionary state, so beautiful and amazing that it could never be faithfully documented in book or film.

[Fookhaht]

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Don't u just love zealots!! Not. The point was following on from Jesus always being portrayed as a handsome white man and his disciples having predominatly white man names given the time and the climate hardly seems credible but ignorance is bliss of coarse until it ends up as bigotry and rasicm and ultimately causes wars.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

White man names? (you're trying to say "WASP"? Is that it?)

Your posts are hysterical.

Teammates, corral this guy of yours before he makes a laughingstock of the entire anti-Christian position!

He's not the only one who gets his facts wrong. Any scholar of Biblical manuscripts would be rolling his eyes at your assertions. They probably wouldn't laugh out loud, though. Just snicker.

Ah, an old and tired m.o. #2: poison the well.

My sources have been direct from scholars of biblical manuscripts, backed by my formal training in ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Middle East archeology (including two digs there), and historical literary criticism. Master's degree.

No need to justify myself further to armchair Internet experts. Carry on, boys and girls.

[MW72]

I think Hitchens puts it better than I ever could.

[sirineou]

one can not reason with people whose belief in the unreasonable motivate their thinking,and tell you so, it is not like they mislead you, they explicitly tell you so, the adhere to faith rather than reason. So to reasonably argue with them is in it's self Unreasonable.

[Fookhaht]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

Wow.

Religion-bashing thread by only the second post (and ff.).

Predictable.

Nothing to see here, folks; now move along...

You forgot to threaten to kill him, or at the very least state he was going to burn in hell...lets have a nice adult debate without threats of fire and Brimstone shall we

Wow. You're the one who brought up Hell. Don't lay that on me. Did you have a bad experience with a Sunday School teacher? A Bible-thumping aunt with a bun on her head?

Over-the-top post.

Never went to Sunday school and i have been an Athiest/agnositic (what ever the perferred term is) as long as i can remember, no bible bashers, or happy clapper in my family as far as i know

Obviously the sarcasm in my respone went right over the top of you

Yup, it sure did. Sorry if I overreacted.

[Fookhaht]

one can not reason with people whose belief in the unreasonable motivate their thinking,and tell you so, it is not like they mislead you, they explicitly tell you so, the adhere to faith rather than reason

So to reasonably argue with them is in it's self Unreasonable.

. Agreed. In my opinion, that's why it's important to base one's faith on reason and evidence. The two are not incompatible.

[Fookhaht]

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Don't u just love zealots!! Not. The point was following on from Jesus always being portrayed as a handsome white man and his disciples having predominatly white man names given the time and the climate hardly seems credible but ignorance is bliss of coarse until it ends up as bigotry and rasicm and ultimately causes wars.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

White man names? (you're trying to say "WASP"? Is that it?)

Your posts are hysterical.

Teammates, corral this guy of yours before he makes a laughingstock of the entire anti-Christian position!

He's not the only one who gets his facts wrong. Any scholar of Biblical manuscripts would be rolling his eyes at your assertions. They probably wouldn't laugh out loud, though. Just snicker.

Ah, an old and tired m.o. #2: poison the well.

My sources have been direct from scholars of biblical manuscripts, backed by my formal training in ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Middle East archeology (including two digs there), and historical literary criticism. Master's degree.

No need to justify myself further to armchair Internet experts. Carry on, boys and girls.

You claim all this academic pedigree and you start referring to documents which havent even been independently peer verified, you make a basic error referring to Josephus as being a contemporary of jesus even though he wasnt even born until 29 years after the accepted date of JC cruxification...masters degree ? Pigs bottom

. Third time misquoted. Already clarified that Josephus' research was contemporary based on his work with eyewitness. Please read whole conversation. Thanks.

[stillbornagain]

Some of you are not being very Christian in this thread.

I suggest you stop bickering and stay on topic.

Maybe not behaving consistently with Christianity's message, but extremely consistently with its history. That said, I know lots of fine Christian people.

[sirineou]

one can not reason with people whose belief in the unreasonable motivate their thinking,and tell you so, it is not like they mislead you, they explicitly tell you so, the adhere to faith rather than reason

So to reasonably argue with them is in it's self Unreasonable.

. Agreed. In my opinion, that's why it's important to base one's faith on reason and evidence. The two are not incompatible.

Faith is a difficult word because it has two meanings,

one would be not to examine the facts and take an issue on Faith and the other one would be to examine the facts and have faith on the results. Unless one defines his/hers choice of the word, it is difficult to have rational discussion on faith.

I believe you are using the second definition of faith, and as such you are correct , but if one uses the first definition, as many do, then the two are definitely (by definition) incompatible.

[Jingthing]

News flash!

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/03/jesus-new-york-times-obituary

Jesus of Nazareth, a Galilean carpenter turned itinerant minister whose appeals to piety and whose repute as a healer had galvanized a growing contingent of believers, died on Friday after being crucified that morning just outside Jerusalem, only days after his followers had welcomed him triumphantly to the city as “the anointed one” and “the Son of David.” He was about 33.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Jingthing

[Fookhaht]

News flash!

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/03/jesus-new-york-times-obituary

"Jesus of Nazareth, a Galilean carpenter turned itinerant minister whose appeals to piety and whose repute as a healer had galvanized a growing contingent of believers, died on Friday after being crucified that morning just outside Jerusalem, only days after his followers had welcomed him triumphantly to the city as “the anointed one” and “the Son of David.” He was about 33."

Ah the original topic (in our distant memories).

Thank you.

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts with personal remarks directed at other members have been removed.

[Fookhaht]

I'm well aware of the objections to Josephus' authenticity, however from the original sources rather than Wikipedia. The original sources leave some seriously exposed flaws in research and logic.

I don't claim to be a scholar in this area, as I moved on to other interests since my degree many years ago. You, sir, used the term. However, I've tried to keep up on major research developments and archeology finds over the years.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[helpisgood]

Written proof but no hard evidence. Do you believe in Snow White and the seven dwarves, that's also written

Cheers

When someone wrote that something he did was witnessed by a gathering of 5,000 people, and wrote it when those witnesses were alive, he would have been laughed out of the country if it wasn't true. That type of thing happened a number of times and never were those writings condemned.

I really think you should let up on your comments because you obviously haven't really studied any part of the history.

He really did live, he really did travel around to speak to people and sometimes it was thousands of people. He had so much impact that he started a new religion called Christianity. Scholars at the time wrote volumes about him called The New Testament. I truly have never met a scholar of any persuasion who argues that he didn't exist.

Cheers.

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

Trentham has a good point. I believe he is referring to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Before then there were what could be called Christians, but there were many competing variations of the new faith. The Roman Emperor Constantine adopted the faith in 312 CE, which may have been for cynical and pragmatic reasons. (See the Battle of Milvian Bridge)

Being a good Roman ruler, Constantine wanted more uniformity and harmony for the religion within his empire, and thus ordered the gathering of bishops, and other ecclesiastics and scholars, to gather and agree on a more unified and organized religion. Thus, this council was a watershed year for Christianity.

By the way, Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its state religion in 301 CE. So, again, Trentham has a good point.

As for Jesus starting the Christian religion, historians would state that differently. Jesus, which is Greek for Yoshua (his real name because he was a Jew, not a Greek), was if anything calling for a reform of the Jewish religion. At that time during the Roman occupation, there was much concern that the priests of the Temple were corrupt and that the non-believing Romans were actually running the Temple behind the scenes. The Temple, the only one in this monotheistic Roman province (a great oddity at that time), was where the Holy of Holies was kept and thus, as the Jews so believed, connected God with His people.

As is well-known, Jesus was accused of being the new “King of the Jews.” Any contemporary in that province knew that this meant that he was believed to be the scion, to some degree, of King David. As such, Jesus’ purpose was to cleanse his homeland of the non-believers, which basically meant the occupying Romans and anyone helping them. In short, Jesus was a nationalist Jew. That is why “Jesus (or Yoshua), King of the Jews” appears on the top of his cross. The pragmatic Romans, who were running a vast and disparate empire, were warning others what will happen to them should they also commit sedition or incite rebellion.

After Jesus’ death, his younger brother, James the Just, led the new ministry but required followers to also adhere to the Mosaic Code (keeping kosher, etc.) like any other good Jew. James died shortly before the start of the First Jewish-Roman War (a rebellion) (66-73 CE), and very importantly, the Fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE. After that, the new faith diverted sharply from being a reform wing of the Jewish religion.

Also, shortly after the fall of the Temple, the four canonized gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written. The purpose of these gospels was to proselytize and to express the revelations of the new faith, not to accurately record historical facts. This was about expressing the faith, not recording mere facts. As is well-known, there are a number of inconsistencies among the four gospels.

Due to the fact that the first Jewish revolt of 67-73 CE was so bloody and costly to Rome (and there were two more very bloody Jewish revolts thereafter), presenting the new faith as a reform wing of the Jewish religion would be a hard sell to any potential convert within the empire. So, the new faith was recast as more and more of a Gentile and, to some degree, a Roman religion and even later incorporated pagan beliefs (e.g., the modern celebrations of Christmas and Easter). Thus, the faith evolved and branched out to become a different religion. Besides, not many non-Jews probably wanted to give up pork and get circumcised anyway.

As for historicity of Jesus, Josephus, who was a Jew and a translator for the Romans during the first revolt, referenced James the Just in his history of the war as the brother of the executed Jesus.

If you’d like to learn more, a very good source for the layman is Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot. I believe amazon.com has it, if you cannot find it anywhere else.

Thank you for reading this!

Edited March 26, 2016 by helpisgood

[sirineou]

Written proof but no hard evidence. Do you believe in Snow White and the seven dwarves, that's also written

Cheers

When someone wrote that something he did was witnessed by a gathering of 5,000 people, and wrote it when those witnesses were alive, he would have been laughed out of the country if it wasn't true. That type of thing happened a number of times and never were those writings condemned.

I really think you should let up on your comments because you obviously haven't really studied any part of the history.

He really did live, he really did travel around to speak to people and sometimes it was thousands of people. He had so much impact that he started a new religion called Christianity. Scholars at the time wrote volumes about him called The New Testament. I truly have never met a scholar of any persuasion who argues that he didn't exist.

Cheers.

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

Trentham has a good point. I believe he is referring to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Before then there were what could be called Christians, but there were many competing variations of the new faith. The Roman Emperor Constantine adopted the faith in 312 CE, which may have been for cynical and pragmatic reasons. (See the Battle of Milvian Bridge)

Being a good Roman ruler, Constantine wanted more uniformity and harmony for the religion within his empire, and thus ordered the gathering of bishops, and other ecclesiastics and scholars, to gather and agree on a more unified and organized religion. Thus, this council was a watershed year for Christianity.

By the way, Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its state religion in 301 CE. So, again, Trentham has a good point.

As for Jesus starting the Christian religion, historians would state that differently. Jesus, which is Greek for Yoshua (his real name because he was a Jew, not a Greek), was if anything calling for a reform of the Jewish religion. At that time during the Roman occupation, there was much concern that the priests of the Temple were corrupt and that the non-believing Romans were actually running the Temple behind the scenes. The Temple, the only one in this monotheistic Roman province (a great oddity at that time), was where the Holy of Holies was kept and thus, as the Jews so believed, connected God with His people.

As is well-known, Jesus was accused of being the new “King of the Jews.” Any contemporary in that province knew that this meant that he was believed to be the scion, to some degree, of King David. As such, Jesus’ purpose was to cleanse his homeland of the non-believers, which basically meant the occupying Romans and anyone helping them. In short, Jesus was a nationalist Jew. That is why “Jesus (or Yoshua), King of the Jews” appears on the top of his cross. The pragmatic Romans, who were running a vast and disparate empire, were warning others what will happen to them should they also commit sedition or incite rebellion.

After Jesus’ death, his younger brother, James the Just, led the new ministry but required followers to also adhere to the Mosaic Code (keeping kosher, etc.) like any other good Jew. James died shortly before the start of the First Jewish-Roman War (a rebellion) (66-73 CE), and very importantly, the Fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE. After that, the new faith diverted sharply from being a reform wing of the Jewish religion.

Also, shortly after the fall of the Temple, the four canonized gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written. The purpose of these gospels was to proselytize and to express the revelations of the new faith, not to accurately record historical facts. This was about expressing the faith, not recording mere facts. As is well-known, there are a number of inconsistencies among the four gospels.

Due to the fact that the first Jewish revolt of 67-73 CE was so bloody and costly to Rome (and there were two more very bloody Jewish revolts thereafter), presenting the new faith as a reform wing of the Jewish religion would be a hard sell to any potential convert within the empire. So, the new faith was recast as more and more of a Gentile and, to some degree, a Roman religion and even later incorporated pagan beliefs (e.g., the modern celebrations of Christmas and Easter). Thus, the faith evolved and branched out to become a different religion. Besides, not many non-Jews probably wanted to give up pork and get circumcised anyway.

As for historicity of Jesus, Josephus, who was a Jew and a translator for the Romans during the first revolt, referenced James the Just in his history of the war as the brother of the executed Jesus.

If you’d like to learn more, a very good source for the layman is Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot. I believe amazon.com has it, if you cannot find it anywhere else.

Thank you for reading this!

Al these are well and good and highly arguable, but what we are objecting is not a historical Jesus, even tho that is also in contention, but a Supernatural Jesus.

[NeverSure]

Al these are well and good and highly arguable, but what we are objecting is not a historical Jesus, even tho that is also in contention, but a Supernatural Jesus.

This has been the normal position for 2,000 years. Objecting to a historical Jesus or Mohammed or anyone else who had so much impact on the world is an exercise in futility. IMHO, such positions would normally be taken only by people with an emotional desire to deny history.

Of all the major historical figures I know of, even figures who lived 4,000 years ago, the only one I know of that people deny existed is Jesus.

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

There are also written records which suggest he wasnt crucified / died or resurected, therefore there is no premise for Christianity

I could accept that the person concerned from a historical perspective being a Jewish terrorist in Romes eyes, and he may or may not have been executed for his actions against the Roman state, the rest of it, son of of god, resurection etc is all Walt Disney, fairy stories for adults

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views.

However, they are views. Views come from all kinds of sources, written, spoken, gossip etc. Some sources also come from visions during prayer.

Scientists will admit that they know less than 10% of what happens in the human mind, they freely describe their knowledge of the human mind as "the tip of an iceberg." Scientific knowledge about mind-related visionary effects is even more sketchy. Scientists do not have explanations for the 3D Stereo dreams you have at night, or indeed the 3D Stereo memories you might have, of things that occurred 50 years ago. Science can not explain dreams or memories, these most non-contentious facts of our daily lives. So how could they possibly hope to explain religious visions?

Many sceptics have become devout Christians after having visions, in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes, depicting scenes from a book they have never read, or film versions they have never seen.

I have had visions, and I am in no way special, they are more common than many people in today's world may think. My faith is based more on my visions than on what other people have written. I believe that Satan was cast down, and the world became his kingdom. However, he envied Jesus, because Jesus was still all-powerful, and safe from harm. Jesus chose to become mortal, weak, and exposed to all the evil and harm. God and the angels were dead against this move, but Jesus was to show the world some things that will be remembered forever. He cast aside all his power, and embraced fragile mortality, in the life of a poor and humble fishing family. He was inviting all the evils of the underworld to take their best shot, which he would face with courage and humility, with nothing but cloth and ligament to protect him.

His words and actions that followed, are still the most beautiful words and actions, and they will be remembered forever. If we choose to listen to those words, is of course another matter, and is always a truly personal choice.

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views ........... Well isn't that nice of you.

Some sources also come from visions during prayer................ Hallucinations

in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes......................... People with schizophrenia do too.

I believe that Satan was cast down.......................... wow! Delusional.

God is as real as the Easter Bunny.

Amen.

I thought Yunla's post was quite honest and polite, certainly contrasting the confrontational response. I do not believe for a moment that the Christian story is anything other than contrived fantasy. It was clearly co-opted and modified in the hundreds of years that followed to resemble the familiar dead and rising gods narrative that the Roman/Hellenistic world would have been familiar. In fact, the archeoastronomy details in the christian narrative make it clear that this was a mystery school that was seeded into the Jesus story. But Yunla is correct: There is a collective dimension to shared consciousness and belief in which people access these hypnagogic states and have "experiences."

They are not hallucinations. They are not schizophrenic. They are not delusional. The number of people in history with these shared experiences are simply staggering. However, left to the sensory devices to explain these experiences people fit them into fantastical narratives or accept verbatim stories handed down; but the experiences are inherently real. Its the context which is false.

That a person does not have such experiences- not hallucinating; not schizophrenic; not delusional, is likely a reflection of superficiality, or refuge in logic at the expense of a priori. A gross inability for qualia that transcends their mundane world. It is perfectly acceptable to indict the belief without indicting the poster. Indeed, more is said by people who post this way than that which they respond to.

[sirineou]

There are also written records which suggest he wasnt crucified / died or resurected, therefore there is no premise for Christianity

I could accept that the person concerned from a historical perspective being a Jewish terrorist in Romes eyes, and he may or may not have been executed for his actions against the Roman state, the rest of it, son of of god, resurection etc is all Walt Disney, fairy stories for adults

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views.

However, they are views. Views come from all kinds of sources, written, spoken, gossip etc. Some sources also come from visions during prayer.

Scientists will admit that they know less than 10% of what happens in the human mind, they freely describe their knowledge of the human mind as "the tip of an iceberg." Scientific knowledge about mind-related visionary effects is even more sketchy. Scientists do not have explanations for the 3D Stereo dreams you have at night, or indeed the 3D Stereo memories you might have, of things that occurred 50 years ago. Science can not explain dreams or memories, these most non-contentious facts of our daily lives. So how could they possibly hope to explain religious visions?

Many sceptics have become devout Christians after having visions, in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes, depicting scenes from a book they have never read, or film versions they have never seen.

I have had visions, and I am in no way special, they are more common than many people in today's world may think. My faith is based more on my visions than on what other people have written. I believe that Satan was cast down, and the world became his kingdom. However, he envied Jesus, because Jesus was still all-powerful, and safe from harm. Jesus chose to become mortal, weak, and exposed to all the evil and harm. God and the angels were dead against this move, but Jesus was to show the world some things that will be remembered forever. He cast aside all his power, and embraced fragile mortality, in the life of a poor and humble fishing family. He was inviting all the evils of the underworld to take their best shot, which he would face with courage and humility, with nothing but cloth and ligament to protect him.

His words and actions that followed, are still the most beautiful words and actions, and they will be remembered forever. If we choose to listen to those words, is of course another matter, and is always a truly personal choice.

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views ........... Well isn't that nice of you.

Some sources also come from visions during prayer................ Hallucinations

in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes......................... People with schizophrenia do too.

I believe that Satan was cast down.......................... wow! Delusional.

God is as real as the Easter Bunny.

Amen.

I thought Yunla's post was quite honest and polite, certainly contrasting the confrontational response. I do not believe for a moment that the Christian story is anything other than contrived fantasy. It was clearly co-opted and modified in the hundreds of years that followed to resemble the familiar dead and rising gods narrative that the Roman/Hellenistic world would have been familiar. In fact, the archeoastronomy details in the christian narrative make it clear that this was a mystery school that was seeded into the Jesus story. But Yunla is correct: There is a collective dimension to shared consciousness and belief in which people access these hypnagogic states and have "experiences."

They are not hallucinations. They are not schizophrenic. They are not delusional. The number of people in history with these shared experiences are simply staggering. However, left to the sensory devices to explain these experiences people fit them into fantastical narratives or accept verbatim stories handed down; but the experiences are inherently real. Its the context which is false.

That a person does not have such experiences- not hallucinating; not schizophrenic; not delusional, is likely a reflection of superficiality, or refuge in logic at the expense of a priori. A gross inability for qualia that transcends their mundane world. It is perfectly acceptable to indict the belief without indicting the poster. Indeed, more is said by people who post this way than that which they respond to.

Though I I agree with most of what you have to say on the subject I dont understand the

"They are not hallucinations. They are not schizophrenic. They are not delusional. "

Perhaps you could explain further, reality is a favorite subject of mine.

If one sees an apple but an apple is not there I would think that person is hallucinating,and if such person expects to nourish him/her self with said apple, I would say such person is delusional.

[tonbridgebrit]

Al these are well and good and highly arguable, but what we are objecting is not a historical Jesus, even tho that is also in contention, but a Supernatural Jesus.

This has been the normal position for 2,000 years. Objecting to a historical Jesus or Mohammed or anyone else who had so much impact on the world is an exercise in futility. IMHO, such positions would normally be taken only by people with an emotional desire to deny history.

Of all the major historical figures I know of, even figures who lived 4,000 years ago, the only one I know of that people deny existed is Jesus.

Cheers.

And indeed, why is it that certain people have this massive desire and need to claim that Jesus never existed ? Why the desire to taunt and attack the Christian message ? One person (or more) has already admitted to attacking and mocking Christianity with sarcasm. Why do it ?

I mean, if people feel that it is a fairy tale, why not just let other people carry on believing it, and leave them alone ?

I think I know why some people have got to attack the Christian message. It's because, deep down, there is fear that it might be true after all. There is desire to paint a picture where the whole thing is nonsense, because THOSE people feel a lot safer and secure with that picture.

[arjunadawn]

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views.

However, they are views. Views come from all kinds of sources, written, spoken, gossip etc. Some sources also come from visions during prayer.

Scientists will admit that they know less than 10% of what happens in the human mind, they freely describe their knowledge of the human mind as "the tip of an iceberg." Scientific knowledge about mind-related visionary effects is even more sketchy. Scientists do not have explanations for the 3D Stereo dreams you have at night, or indeed the 3D Stereo memories you might have, of things that occurred 50 years ago. Science can not explain dreams or memories, these most non-contentious facts of our daily lives. So how could they possibly hope to explain religious visions?

Many sceptics have become devout Christians after having visions, in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes, depicting scenes from a book they have never read, or film versions they have never seen.

I have had visions, and I am in no way special, they are more common than many people in today's world may think. My faith is based more on my visions than on what other people have written. I believe that Satan was cast down, and the world became his kingdom. However, he envied Jesus, because Jesus was still all-powerful, and safe from harm. Jesus chose to become mortal, weak, and exposed to all the evil and harm. God and the angels were dead against this move, but Jesus was to show the world some things that will be remembered forever. He cast aside all his power, and embraced fragile mortality, in the life of a poor and humble fishing family. He was inviting all the evils of the underworld to take their best shot, which he would face with courage and humility, with nothing but cloth and ligament to protect him.

His words and actions that followed, are still the most beautiful words and actions, and they will be remembered forever. If we choose to listen to those words, is of course another matter, and is always a truly personal choice.

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views ........... Well isn't that nice of you.

Some sources also come from visions during prayer................ Hallucinations

in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes......................... People with schizophrenia do too.

I believe that Satan was cast down.......................... wow! Delusional.

God is as real as the Easter Bunny.

Amen.

I thought Yunla's post was quite honest and polite, certainly contrasting the confrontational response. I do not believe for a moment that the Christian story is anything other than contrived fantasy. It was clearly co-opted and modified in the hundreds of years that followed to resemble the familiar dead and rising gods narrative that the Roman/Hellenistic world would have been familiar. In fact, the archeoastronomy details in the christian narrative make it clear that this was a mystery school that was seeded into the Jesus story. But Yunla is correct: There is a collective dimension to shared consciousness and belief in which people access these hypnagogic states and have "experiences."

They are not hallucinations. They are not schizophrenic. They are not delusional. The number of people in history with these shared experiences are simply staggering. However, left to the sensory devices to explain these experiences people fit them into fantastical narratives or accept verbatim stories handed down; but the experiences are inherently real. Its the context which is false.

That a person does not have such experiences- not hallucinating; not schizophrenic; not delusional, is likely a reflection of superficiality, or refuge in logic at the expense of a priori. A gross inability for qualia that transcends their mundane world. It is perfectly acceptable to indict the belief without indicting the poster. Indeed, more is said by people who post this way than that which they respond to.

Though I I agree with most of what you have to say on the subject I dont understand the

"They are not hallucinations. They are not schizophrenic. They are not delusional. "

Perhaps you could explain further, reality is a favorite subject of mine.

If one sees an apple but an apple is not there I would think that person is hallucinating,and if such person expects to nourish him/her self with said apple, I would say such person is delusional.

Posts remove to reply: Hello Sirineou

Humans have variously had these experiences throughout history- mystical, pre-dream/post-awake, body alseep/mind awake states, hypnagogic, transcendental. What shared state we access I do not know but the commonality is indisputable; its the entire premise of some very brilliant minds, such as Jung for one. What then happens over the ages is various efforts to explain or rationalize the experiences are filtered through local conventions, archetypes, myths, elder's narrative, creation cosmology, etc. These then become the exegesis of the experiences= religions, mysticism.The explanations (religions) that apply themselves to the practical as well, with social laws and conventions, written testimony, injunctions, a "code," survive the ages. If the narrative applied to these mystical/peak experiences answer the core questions of local peoples, the religion survives. If the religion that overlays the core experiences is open to syncretism and can adapt and change, the religion can proselytize and grow. The religion may finally become a fantastical overlay but the core experiences that humans have that gave rise to religions most certainly exist; they are common experiences and a growing body of research confirms these states.

If we accept that the core experiences that found religion and shamanism, etc, are hallucinations, schizophrenia, or delusional, we must then come up with descriptions for these pathological states from the DSM-V or in the case of delusional, agreement on baseline reality. Religions are formed from natural but uncommon states/peak-experiences of consciousness; consciousness is not on or off, it most definitely is a continuum, as any anesthesiologist can attest. The experiences.... whatever they are... are simply other states of consciousness with universally common themes- such as Jungian archetypes, for instance. Religion is the afterbirth that is applied to these ineffable states, filtered through sensory (read 5 senses) explanations. Considering the nature of the OP, IMO, it was over the top to badger those who believe, especially with such a feeble cudgel.

[tonbridgebrit]

I've noticed a load of people turning up here, taunting and insulting the Christian message and people with Christian beliefs. Notice nobody (or very few) has come here to taunt the non-believers.

What would it look like if people taunted the non-believers ? How about this ?
Oh look, if the whole thing is rubbish, well, Christians can still live their lives with a false sense of security and happiness. A delusion is a delusion, yes, but if he never 'wakes up' from that delusion, well, what is the problem ?

A religious man believes that he is going to the eternal resting home after death. This is because he believes that Jesus died on Good Friday, and rose again. Yes, salvation is based on the cross and ressurection. And so, stay happy during life, knowing (thinking) that there is an eternal home for him after death.
An atheist reckons that there is no place after death, it's all over at death. Now, if atheism is true, well, death happens to all of us, Christians will only 'realise' there is no eternal home for them after death once they've died.

And that is IF atheism is true. And what if it is not ? To all atheists, what if Jesus was put on a cross and actually did die on Good Friday, and He did rise from the dead later on ? Then what ? You might be finding out after your death.

In other words, if you're an atheist, if you're right, there's no problems for believers. But if you've got it wrong, you might/will have a problem after your physical death on earth.


I don't wish to taunt atheists and non-believers, but I'm tempted to do it when I see some of the posts here.