Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 What is Bible? Its another legend. There is no science in this book. Someone saidm someone seen and so on. What is Bible? Its another legend. There is no science in this book. Someone saidm someone seen and so on. I think it shows the beginning of science. Science before scientific methods.
Ten oz Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 What is Bible? Its another legend. There is no science in this book. Someone saidm someone seen and so on. Of course the Bible is not real history. That isn't the question being asked in this thread. I am sure that Jesus had he existed did not rise from the dead and all that nonsense. But did he exist. Was the myth built around an actual person?
Endy0816 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I would say there was probably an initial leader who may have answered to that name during his lifetime. Basing this on how other religions developed historically and more recently. Most have a central figure heavily involved in the founding.
Eise Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 The oldest Gospel isn't Mark's, it is the oldest surviving one, which won't make it the oldest. It was written years after Jesus. That is true. But we know Mark got his information elsewhere. He uses some Aramaic phrases, which points to Aramaic sources, Jesus' own tongue, even that Mark himself wrote in Greek. His source could have been an eyewitness, but of course it could also be hearsay. But at least one step closer to the historical Jesus. 1
ZVBXRPL Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 If Jesus was a real historical human being, then the backstory that seems most likely, in my opinion, is the one where he travelled to the East and was influenced by Buddhism. The only 2 historical sources, outside the Bible, for Jesus being a real person, were both written around 100 years or so after Jesus.
Robittybob1 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 If Jesus was a real historical human being, then the backstory that seems most likely, in my opinion, is the one where he travelled to the East and was influenced by Buddhism. The only 2 historical sources, outside the Bible, for Jesus being a real person, were both written around 100 years or so after Jesus. There could be something in that, for Judas Thomas was sent to India, and he was one of Jesus' closest disciple. Maybe the twin was sent to the same place where Jesus learnt philosophy earlier. I'd like to see more evidence of this if possible.
Hendrick Laursen Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Certainly impossible. The concept of "GOD" is absent in Buddhism. However, he is the "father" - as christians say - in Christianity.
Robittybob1 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Certainly impossible. The concept of "GOD" is absent in Buddhism. However, he is the "father" - as christians say - in Christianity. And prior to Buddhism there was?
Hendrick Laursen Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 The concept of God is as old as Humanity itself. The concept of God is as old as Humanity itself.
Ten oz Posted January 18, 2015 Author Posted January 18, 2015 The concept of God is as old as Humanity itself.The concept of God is as old as Humanity itself. So is lying.
Robittybob1 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 So is lying. What about the concept of only ever telling the truth?
Strange Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What about the concept of only ever telling the truth? Storytelling is as old as humanity too.
overtone Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The concept of God is as old as Humanity itself. The Abrahamic deity of the Judeo-Christian tradition is about half as old as agriculture - that's the concept most people are referring to when they use the word "God". Informative introduction: "A History of God" K Armstrong Edited January 19, 2015 by overtone
Finding the Elephant Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 You know, it really doesn't matter if Jesus is a real person or not. The value is in the message. I can value the message even if I find Jesus did not actually exist. Though, of all the things I would do if I could have a few opportunities to travel in time, going and having a look a the person who was Jesus is certainly on top of my list. I wonder what or who I would find.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Indeed, and his message (according to Matthew) was "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So Jesus' message was perfectly clear- keep the old laws about stoning people to death and killing children for talking back to their parents. All this sort of stuff http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html is from the old laws that Jesus said we should still follow. Yes, whether he was real or not isn't the issue. The important thing is the evil which he stood for.
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Indeed, and his message (according to Matthew) was "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So Jesus' message was perfectly clear- keep the old laws about stoning people to death and killing children for talking back to their parents. All this sort of stuff http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html is from the old laws that Jesus said we should still follow. Yes, whether he was real or not isn't the issue. The important thing is the evil which he stood for. I take that you are saying those things from a non-Christian viewpoint. So what you say ends up embarrassing a Jesus following person. What you are also saying is that Jesus never made an iota of a difference, in fact you say he only reinforced the old rules. I have proved that view scripturally wrong. You take the bits out to support your view but forget to read that Jesus in the end fulfilled the law and after him there came a new set of laws and the old laws were finished. He couldn't change the law while he was alive but achieved that upon his death, as they say he became the sacrifice. All the old stuff was done away with for Christians. Now the law we follow is the one written on our hearts and our minds.
Ten oz Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 The message attributed to Jesus years after his claimed life written down by those who had never him is not evidence. The line of reasoning that Jesus has to have been real because Christianity is so substantial simply isn't a compelling one to me. By that line of reasoning every deity with a substantial following must be real. So IMO Jesus' message is irrelevant to the discussion has it was not written by his hand.
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) The message attributed to Jesus years after his claimed life written down by those who had never him is not evidence. The line of reasoning that Jesus has to have been real because Christianity is so substantial simply isn't a compelling one to me. By that line of reasoning every deity with a substantial following must be real. So IMO Jesus' message is irrelevant to the discussion has it was not written by his hand. It is what is written in your head and heart that is important. Now I found those ideas mysterious, but it was the message I got from reading the NT. So there was no intention to write anything down on paper. For how can you tell what is written on your mind or heart? That was the introspection required. Self awareness is essential. Not many Christians see it the way I do. Edited February 28, 2015 by Robittybob1
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I take that you are saying those things from a non-Christian viewpoint. So what you say ends up embarrassing a Jesus following person. What you are also saying is that Jesus never made an iota of a difference, in fact you say he only reinforced the old rules. I have proved that view scripturally wrong. You take the bits out to support your view but forget to read that Jesus in the end fulfilled the law and after him there came a new set of laws and the old laws were finished. He couldn't change the law while he was alive but achieved that upon his death, as they say he became the sacrifice. All the old stuff was done away with for Christians. Now the law we follow is the one written on our hearts and our minds. If quoting Jesus causes embarrassment to those who follow him, that's not my fault. If it is true that "He couldn't change the law while he was alive but achieved that upon his death," then why did he say that the laws would not change? As far as I'm aware you have not proved anything about this.
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 If quoting Jesus causes embarrassment to those who follow him, that's not my fault. If it is true that "He couldn't change the law while he was alive but achieved that upon his death," then why did he say that the laws would not change? As far as I'm aware you have not proved anything about this. You are the one quoting the Bible so you will find what I say is in there. I didn't find what was quoted as embarrassing but your interpretation that: So Jesus' message was perfectly clear- keep the old laws about stoning people to death and killing children for talking back to their parents.All this sort of stuff http://skepticsannot...t/children.html is from the old laws that Jesus said we should still follow. Yes, whether he was real or not isn't the issue. The important thing is the evil which he stood for. They are your words not his.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 OK, so when Christ said " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law" What "law" do you think he meant? Also, where on earth did you get the idea that words like this "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" or "He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." are mine? Those are (among) the laws to which Christ was referring when he said he wasn't here to change the laws..
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) OK, so when Christ said " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law" What "law" do you think he meant? Also, where on earth did you get the idea that words like this "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" or "He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." are mine? Those are (among) the laws to which Christ was referring when he said he wasn't here to change the laws.. It is cutting it fine. He couldn't get people to rebel against the law (their laws) until he became the new covenant. From then the old laws were passed away with. I don't think many are game enough to believe this but it was what I found there. It made the message more democratic, but we were asked to really follow our conscience (if that is our heart and mind?). It is one thing to get a new insight and so I am trying out this new freedom. It is scary, for you wonder if there is anything written on your heart and mind. It isn't something you can check ahead of time. Does it work? Can it be made to work? Maybe you already do this any way. Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, Maybe they made a mistake leaving Hebrews in the Bible but it is there. I'm listening to this documentary that says some people have no conscience. So what do they do? Edited February 28, 2015 by Robittybob1
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 It's not as if those laws changed much when Christianity was widely adopted anyway. it's only recently that Christians have stopped burning witches, holding trials by ordeal and even crusading. The improved morality that we see today isn't due to Christ. Not only did he say that the old laws should stand, they stood.
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] He is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.[33][34]" Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Ten oz Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] He is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.[33][34]" These mentioned have already been dicussed at length in this thread. Many believe the Josephus writes are forgeries while Tacitus only mentions Jesus as a description of who Christians are. Neither mentions Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary to Jesus' supposed life.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now