How can you literally believe...

[columbus]

Contemporary? It was a long time ago, we have demonstrably old accounts of Jesus, which is consistent for something that happened a long long time ago.

The only contemporary account of Jesus was the Romans listing a Jesus as being executed for violent treason. I've come to the conclusion that there is an historical Jesus and His main mission was the overthrow of Roman power in His homeland. The Jewish lackey government was nearly as bad and had to go too. But He got caught and executed. His followers mostly did too, this was referred to as "martyred".
Paul started a new religion in His Name, which Jesus had nothing to do with.
Which is why there is essentially no records of Jesus outside The Legend. What He was really up to was a capital crime, according to the Romans.
The NT makes a lot more sense if you interpret "The Kingdom of God" as a Judean homeland free of pagan domination.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

The only contemporary account of Jesus was the Romans listing a Jesus as being executed for violent treason. I've come to the conclusion that there is an historical Jesus and His main mission was the overthrow of Roman power in His homeland. The Jewish lackey government was nearly as bad and had to go too. But He got caught and executed. His followers mostly did too, this was referred to as "martyred".
Paul started a new religion in His Name, which Jesus had nothing to do with.
Which is why there is essentially no records of Jesus outside The Legend. What He was really up to was a capital crime, according to the Romans.
The NT makes a lot more sense if you interpret "The Kingdom of God" as a Judean homeland free of pagan domination.
Tom

But any Romans who then became Christians would have been killed for Treason. Which was not the case. Or anyone for that matter, the Romans would have had 0 tolerance for Christians if what you said was true.

 

[columbus]

But any Romans who then became Christians would have been killed for Treason. Which was not the case. Or anyone for that matter, the Romans would have had 0 tolerance for Christians if what you said was true.

Not if they joined a religion started by Paul that made no reference whatever to Jesus's real mission and stuck to what Paul taught in Jesus's Name. Frankly, I expect that hardly any Romans actually remembered Jesus a month after His death, much less several years later.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

Not if they joined a religion started by Paul that made no reference whatever to Jesus's real mission and stuck to what Paul taught in Jesus's Name. Frankly, I expect that hardly any Romans actually remembered Jesus a month after His death, much less several years later.
Tom

Yet here we are 2000 years later, still talking about Jesus.

 

[columbus]

Yet here we are 2000 years later, still talking about Jesus.

Deft segue away from the point.
Nobody found Jesus interesting or important enough to mention until Paul invented a Jewish heresy in Jesus's Name. By then Jesus was a legend.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

Deft segue away from the point.
Nobody found Jesus interesting or important enough to mention until Paul invented a Jewish heresy in Jesus's Name. By then Jesus was a legend.
Tom

That's just so far out there...

 

[columbus]

That's just so far out there...

But it matches such facts as there are and better explains the huge gaps in the facts.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

But it matches such facts as there are and better explains the huge gaps in the facts.
Tom

Perhaps in your mind it does. I'm not going to try and convince you differently.

 

[Muffled]

He didn't write it but ordered the canon to be decided upon.

I believe kudos are in order for him. The church needed some organization and unification.

 

[Muffled]

Where did I say Constantine wrote the NT? Liars always twist My word that My servants deliver into the visible world.

I believe I have to quote you and say why I perceived what you said the way I did. "These false gospels, traditions and pagan doctrines are what made up the New Testament writings." To me New Testament writings means the New Testament. Any other writings are not part of the New Testament.

 

[Cephus]

To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures if we say there is no contemporary evidence. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

Maybe he did. I'm not making any arguments for the existence of Socrates and if it turned out that Socrates never existed, it would mean exactly nothing to me. But you can't say that with Jesus. Your entire religious worldview requires that Jesus exist, hence you can't even question it.

And by the way, you're engaging in the fallacy of appeal to consequences. It doesn't matter what else we might have to question, the fact remains that you have no evidence that any historical Jesus actually existed.

 

[Cephus]

Contemporary? It was a long time ago, we have demonstrably old accounts of Jesus, which is consistent for something that happened a long long time ago.

Yes, contemporary. As in living at the same time as Jesus. As in direct eyewitnesses. You have none of those. At best, you have second and third hand stories, related by people who never laid eyes on Jesus.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, that's called consorting and willfully concealing a series of indictable offenses.

There's absolutely no defense for that. Babbling on about "group thought"... my god...

I'm trying to approach this from a more "academic" approach, which means explaining it through things that are apparent, such as the effect the group is having on the individuals. It doesn't defend it, it is still harboring fugitives, but what this does do is explain the behavior in a more accurate manner than "psychotic."

 

[psychoslice]

I can only imagine the anger of Jesus if He found Himself in Creflo Dollar's new jet, or the Vatican palaces, or Pat Robertson's TV studio.
Etc. Etc.
Tom

Yes he can be a very angry man, I can imagine him whipping everyone in the Vatican lol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes he can be a very angry man, I can imagine him whipping everyone in the Vatican lol.

I am of the belief that when Jesus said he'd have a 1,000 year reign on Earth, he didn't realize at the time he was speaking that the 1,000 years is the time it's going to take him to punish those who abused his name, not the duration of his reign. He was still getting used to the "god thing."

 

[psychoslice]

I am of the belief that when Jesus said he'd have a 1,000 year reign on Earth, he didn't realize at the time he was speaking that the 1,000 years is the time it's going to take him to punish those who abused his name, not the duration of his reign. He was still getting used to the "god thing."

Yes he certainly is a revengeful man.

 

[Muffled]

Yes he can be a very angry man, I can imagine him whipping everyone in the Vatican lol.

I believe the reference was to a house of prayer, none of which references (Vatican, studio, jet) apply.

 

[Muffled]

I am of the belief that when Jesus said he'd have a 1,000 year reign on Earth, he didn't realize at the time he was speaking that the 1,000 years is the time it's going to take him to punish those who abused his name, not the duration of his reign. He was still getting used to the "god thing."

If there is any truth in that statement, I believe I must have missed it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there is any truth in that statement, I believe I must have missed it.

It wasn't a serious post anyways. More of an attempt at humor while pointing out their are a ton of abusive Christians out there.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe the reference was to a house of prayer, none of which references (Vatican, studio, jet) apply.

So no praying goes on in the Vatican ?.