Christian Concepts

[Neo Deist]

Let's look at your logic:

Pilate was cruel.
Pilate executed Jesus to make an example out of Him.
Pilate had to answer to Caesar.

STOP.

The above illustrates the nature of Pilate. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Back then, if you stood against Rome, you were eliminated.

CONTINUE.

Therefore Christians made Jesus a martyr.

They did so after the fact. Those that remained loyal to the cause wrote about Jesus decades later (Gospels) and changed certain facts/points about the story. The Book of Matthew goes out of its way to paint Jesus as the messiah, and to place the blame on the Jews.

 

[Desert Snake]

STOP.

The above illustrates the nature of Pilate. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Back then, if you stood against Rome, you were eliminated.

CONTINUE.



They did so after the fact. Those that remained loyal to the cause wrote about Jesus decades later (Gospels) and changed certain facts/points about the story. The Book of Matthew goes out of its way to paint Jesus as the messiah, and to place the blame on the Jews.

Huh? You have no idea what the ''real'' story was, lol. Your just speculating. The ''crucifixion', could be a fictional seasonal Deity aspect to the story, you have no idea. Your picking and chossing, and claiming to not be picking and choosing!

 

[Neo Deist]

Huh? You have no idea what the ''real'' story was, lol. Your just speculating. The ''crucifixion', could be a fictional seasonal Deity aspect to the story, you have no idea. Your picking and chossing, and claiming to not be picking and choosing!

It is called studying history.

The Bible, with its anonymous Gospel writers, is the only source making claims that are pro-Jesus. Everything else under the sun dictates otherwise, including common sense.

 

[viole]

Maybe because the concept of "original sin" is BS?!

I guess it depends on the acronym. Some use BS as an acronym for Biblical Scholarship.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

It is called studying history.

The Bible, with its anonymous Gospel writers, is the only source making claims that are pro-Jesus. Everything else under the sun dictates otherwise, including common sense.

You are showing an extreme personal bias, which should be contrary to your 'deist' position, and reasons you have given for such, elsewhere.

 

[Neo Deist]

You are showing an extreme personal bias, which should be contrary to your 'deist' position, and reasons you have given for such, elsewhere.

I just try and separate fact from fiction. Sometimes the truth tends to scald a few people along the way.

 

[Desert Snake]

I just try and separate fact from fiction. Sometimes the truth tends to scald a few people along the way.

I understand, however, that task is not as easy as inventing your own version of what you think happened, per your own theories that are not backed with anything more than speculation

 

[Neo Deist]

I understand, however, that task is not as easy as inventing your own version of what you think happened, per your own theories that are not backed with anything more than speculation

Ok.

BTW, the Gospels are all pure speculation as well, so...

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok.

BTW, the Gospels are all pure speculation as well, so...

I wasn't making any arguments concerning the Gospels,,,

 

[Muffled]

STOP.

The above illustrates the nature of Pilate. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Back then, if you stood against Rome, you were eliminated.

CONTINUE.



They did so after the fact. Those that remained loyal to the cause wrote about Jesus decades later (Gospels) and changed certain facts/points about the story. The Book of Matthew goes out of its way to paint Jesus as the messiah, and to place the blame on the Jews.

I believe this is an admission that your logic was faulty.

I believe there is no evidence to support this concept. It isn't true simply because of your conjecture.

I believe Matthew is acting on information he had from Jesus. Certainly John reports Jesus as claiming to be the Messiah.

I believe this is too comprehensive a statement to be entirely true. I can remember statements made by Jesus in Matthew that blamed the Pharisees that were seeking to kill Him. Other Jews and Pharisees sought to protect Him.

 

[Muffled]

It is called studying history.

The Bible, with its anonymous Gospel writers, is the only source making claims that are pro-Jesus. Everything else under the sun dictates otherwise, including common sense.

I believe there is nothing else and common sense doesn't always provide truth.

 

[Muffled]

I guess it depends on the acronym. Some use BS as an acronym for Biblical Scholarship.

Ciao

- viole

I believe there are lots of origins. This is the original version of Aug 30th, 2016 as far as I know.

 

[Neo Deist]

I believe this is an admission that your logic was faulty.

It is history, but some are oblivious to it.

I believe there is no evidence to support this concept. It isn't true simply because of your conjecture.

Uhm, Romans were known to document events throughout the empire. It is Jesus that has no supporting evidence, outside of two small mentions about being executed. Absolutely nothing about miracles, rising from the dead, etc.

I believe Matthew is acting on information he had from Jesus. Certainly John reports Jesus as claiming to be the Messiah.

Matthew did not write the Book of Matthew. The authors of all the Gospels are anonymous. They were not eyewitnesses.

I believe this is too comprehensive a statement to be entirely true. I can remember statements made by Jesus in Matthew that blamed the Pharisees that were seeking to kill Him. Other Jews and Pharisees sought to protect Him.

Christians turned the Jesus narrative into a "blame the Jews" story. The Pharisees had no power in the Roman Empire. They did not have the luxury of making demands of their Roman masters, who had conquered that part of the world. Learn to separate fantasy from fiction.