Who's the Christian god? Jesus or his father?

did we ask you?

When the priest is done diddling you, ask him !

Imagine a star, many light years away. It appears as a one-dimensional dot. Now observe the sun. It appears as a two dimensional disk. Finally, shrink it and place at your feet, you an see that it actually has three dimensions.

So is God, one being, multifaceted.

How do I shrink the sun? Won't it be too hot to get anywhere near it?

Yes! Let’s turn to Datalounge to talk about trinitarian theology!

Lol.. This should be good...

Preparing popcorn and snuggling in to my favourite armchair.

We are all god OP. We all are a spark of the divine, our soul is. We live in a weird 3D world in the flesh where many of us have forgotten about unity.

And don’t get me started on the Virgin Mary and all the saints!

That’s what happens when you have to make a monotheistic religion appeal to a bunch of polytheistic pagans.

I'm a big fan of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I think the entire concept of monotheism is a gift from the gods.

Isn't it just Catholicism that has the holy trinity. Which means one God being three dimensial or showing himself in different ways. In other Christian believse isn't just God the father God and Jesus therefore technically some kind of demigod? Seems a less elegant solution.

[quote]That’s what happens when you have to make a monotheistic religion appeal to a bunch of polytheistic pagans.

What happens that it makes more sense psychologically. A religion that has absolutely no female godlike aspect doesn't work very well, because it doesn't describe people's reality.

Read up on it. OP. We don't have to educate you.

It isn’t reality it’s twisted spirituality that saves people the trouble of looking for the truth within and makes them gullible

It’s 2am where I am so why not? God isn’t real. Three-dimensional doesn’t make it multifaceted, you don’t need to place anything at your feet to see that. Maybe try placing a brain between your ears, let’s start there. Also, which Satan are we talking about here? The fallen angel that was as beautiful and as radiant as the morning sun, or the one with the horns and the several eyeballs and devourer of human souls? Aren’t those from two different Christian faiths? Remember: the snake only became a snake after he successfully tempted Adam and Eve. Supposedly, the snake was a winged creature with dazzling colors and moved with effortless grace. And then the situation with the forbidden fruit happened, yada yada yada, then God took away the serpent’s wings and legs and condemned him to spend all its days crawling on its belly. Oh, and the mood would forevermore be tense between the snake and the woman. Is that the version of Satan we’re going with here? Soooo...it’s 2020. Which means that two thousand and twenty years ago Jesus was born and that’s when God (capital G) split into three figureheads: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. God being a tri-force is only as recent as today’s calendar date since it’s counting backwards to year zero pretty much to the day (Christmas) that Jesus was born. Supposedly, the three of them were plotting up this whole savior-comes-to-save-humanity plan long before Jesus incarnated physically in our plane via Mary’s unplucked flower. It’s worth pointing out that Jesus only exists in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Flood story, the Ten Commandments story, Kind David, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, and so much more. Nowhere in the entirety of the Old Testament is Jesus mentioned because he didn’t exist back then. Before Jesus came along, us poor souls had to sacrifice a lamb or a goat or a ram to beg atonement for our sins. Now that Jesus died for sins, we no longer have to sacrifice animals. Where was I going with this? I have no idea. I just felt like rambling at 2am. Speaking of which, when is this Second Coming business supposed to happen? The best end to 2020 that I can think of would be Jesus finally deciding to come back while we’re in the middle of COVID while also in the middle of what might actually turn out to be a very interesting election year. Seriously.

Ta-ta for now!

Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!

Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;

Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!

[quote] R4: How do I shrink the sun? Won't it be too hot to get anywhere near it?

With God, all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

It is like those old mint commercials, two mints in one only 3 gods in one.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

It’s poetry that took 5000 years to write. From Abraham and the aborted sacrifice of his son Isaac on the spot of the future temple in Jerusalem; to Moses and the blood of the sacrificial lamb that told the angle of death to pass over the Israelites, saving their sons; to the son of God himself, whose blood is shed for all, so that sins may be forgiven.

Religions are made up of myths and rituals. The myths have an element of truth to them, and that's why they endure. You can't simply take them at face value, you have to work a little harder than that, Mary.

[quote]How do I shrink the sun? Won't it be too hot to get anywhere near it?

Not if you do it at night

Think of it as a three-piece suit.

In matters of faith, it's best to take these questions up with your pastor and personal spiritual advisor

I went Catholic schools because I grew up in a city with terrible public schools. While I’m grateful for my education, I also realize that at least an hour a day was devoted to a class in magical thinking

What a bold and provocative point of view, OP!

The Christian god concept caught on bc Jesus promises eternal life and lots of people are scared of death. The Bible has its twisted parts and like other religions is just a tool to control people (“be good and you get a fucking treat when you die”), but there are some great passages and Jesus had some really good messages that endure.

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit walk in to a bar.

The bartender says, what'll it be?

And _______ says: _______

According to orthodox Christian theology, God is in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The word "person" doesn't mean "people," but comes from the word persona which refers to the mask that an actor wears in Greek theater. In other words, a role that an actor takes on. So God takes on three roles -- Father, Son, and Spirit -- but unlike a human actor, God is all three at once, forever and always. There is never a time that God is not all three. They are distinct but not separate.

R28, yes it’s bullshit that makes no sense whatsoever but “God works in mysterious ways!”

R28 Great explanation.

Why we lose with just the explanation was that it was created to make all these disparate parts of the Bible seem like that are all referring to the same God

Kinda long, but here are my experiences and thoughts on this specific subject matter:

Part 1/2-Don’t bitch about the TL;DR shit. I opened with the disclaimer!

Christian religions that aren’t catholic are into the trinity, big time.

This concept was one of the main drivers in my childhood that eventually led to me rejecting the entire thing, theologically speaking.

Somewhere in the Bible, it talks about the unpardonable sin: blasphemy.

As was explained to me by a Lutheran priest, blasphemy is when one denies the existence of God, or questions it, and it is the sin that becomes unpardonable, because doubt is what disconnects the potential believer from the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is there to communicate God’s will for us, and part of His will is that we believe that He, His Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are 3 on 1, and that God so love the world, he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. The other part of His will is to have us (humanity), accept this on faith, and that faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit’s gift of faith is accepted, and then rejected, the Holy Spirit leaves the one in doubt.

OK.

So then my question became: So why do so many religions discuss back sliders, and portray this message of how Jesus still loves the back slider, and wants the back slider to come back into this Holy Covenant, based on faith? Didn’t the backslider who left church just commit blasphemy, by basically saying, “Thanks, but no thanks?” Back sliders are people who once believed, and then didn’t, hence they left the church- for those of you not familiar.

Anyhow, he (the Lutheran Priest, who worked at my private school which I attended at the time), answered me by saying I made some really good points.

At least his ambiguity and inability to commit to a firm answer based on intellectual honesty, was better than the made up hodgepodge offered from others to whom I would later go on to discuss this with.

Allegedly, blasphemy also extends to those to who have always rejected the premise of Christianity, based on the arrival of the Messiah whose arrival is predicted (allegedly) all through the Old Testament, which leads to the writing of the New Testament.

Continued from R31, part 2/2:

In the New Testament, it says that Jews, God’s chosen people, will, overwhelmingly reject that Jesus was or is the Messiah, and explicitly, THEIR Messiah. However, in the Book of Revelations, it prophecies that Jews will eventually come to believe that the Jesus they previously rejected as their Messiah, is in fact, their Messiah, and will find eternal life, and be “saved” due to admitting that yes, they were fickle, and decided to change their minds because Jesus literally incarnates back into the flesh, and here on planet earth, performs miracles right in front of them, to offer them empirical PROOF, that he is indeed, Jesus, THEIR Messiah. Well, weren’t those the same exact circumstances which allegedly took place back in Jerusalem, when he first showed up amongst them, in the flesh, and performed miracles such as raising people from the dead, feeding them with Manna from heaven, turning water into wine, and walking on water? Why do they get a second chance to reconsider this eternal life in heaven contract, and the rest of us non Jews, just get one shot, except of course, we fall into the category of the aforementioned backsliding Christians, who walked away, and had to be convinced to admit the error of their ways, so that they too, could return to the fold?

According to biblical text and translations of those texts, all of these people committed Blasphemy, yet here is Jesus, the All Mighty, pandering to their whims, and begging for a second chance.

All of this, and plenty more, eventually led to me saying, “Fuck it. I’ll take my chances on being happy. NOW, on MY own terms, rather than being saved for the sheer purpose of avoiding hell, by an all powerful being, who is obviously more fickle than all the Jews and backsliding Christians put together”.

I’m totally OK with this decision and have never looked back-which to my credit, is what was asked of Lot and his multiple wives, before some of them did look back, triggering them to instantaneously disintegrate into piles of salt, for failing to meet what appears to be an impossible expectation for mere mortals, such as myself, through the ages.

Someone in Ireland wanted Stephen Frye arrested for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit! LMAO!

As an Atheist, I feel like Satan is the true deserving God of man. He gave us knowledge and civilization.

Gnostics came to the same conclusion (more or less) 2000 years ago, r33.

How did Mary have a kid if nobody busted her cherry? Makes no sense!

Human beings are the only animals who:

1. Know that they will die, and, 2, Invented religion.

The first gave rise to the second. The reality of its own mortality terrifies the ego, so it invents alternate realities where it will live forever. That’s it.

It seems some people are curious about how Christians explain or understand the things they believe. I'm happy to give it a try.

I don't know why people feel possessed to post "all religions are made up crap" in these threads. Do you go into "Walking Dead" threads and post, "Zombies aren't real!"

Oh most holy trinity

Undivided unity

Holy God, mighty God, God eternal be adored

R28 yes, and this concept is a mere patriarchal repurposing of ‘Maiden, Mother, Crone’, also known as The Morrígan.

Because Goddesses are too scary and too crazy and too mean, they hurt the feelings of poor little Christian disciples.

R16, I'll see your "Holy, Holy, Holy" and raise you a Walton's "Coronation Te Deum" with lyrics!

We praise thee, O God : we acknowledge thee to be the Lord. All the earth doth worship thee : the Father everlasting. To thee all Angels cry aloud : the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim : continually do cry, Holy, Holy, Holy : Lord God of Sabaoth; Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty : of thy glory. The glorious company of the Apostles : praise thee. The goodly fellowship of the Prophets : praise thee. The noble army of Martyrs : praise thee. The holy Church throughout all the world : doth acknowledge thee; The Father : of an infinite Majesty; Thine honourable, true : and only Son; Also the Holy Ghost : the Comforter. Thou art the King of Glory : O Christ. Thou art the everlasting Son : of the Father. When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man : thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb. When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death : thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. Thou sittest at the right hand of God : in the glory of the Father. We believe that thou shalt come : to be our Judge. We therefore pray thee, help thy servants : whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood. Make them to be numbered with thy Saints : in glory everlasting.

[added later, mainly from Psalm verses:] O Lord, save thy people : and bless thine heritage. Govern them : and lift them up for ever. Day by day : we magnify thee; And we worship thy Name : ever world without end. Vouchsafe, O Lord : to keep us this day without sin. O Lord, have mercy upon us : have mercy upon us. O Lord, let thy mercy lighten upon us : as our trust is in thee. O Lord, in thee have I trusted : let me never be confounded.

I wonder if the middle easterners are flattered that caucasians worship one of their own? It must fill them with pride and awe.

I guess the charlatans who wrote the bible placed his birthplace so far away because at the time, no one ever dreamed anyone would travel there and find out it was all lies.

Huh?

[quote]How did Mary have a kid if nobody busted her cherry? Makes no sense!

Funny how that works:

- Zeus take the form of a swan and impregnates Leda = absurd Greek myth - Yahweh takes the form of a dove and impregnates Mary = Revealed Eternal Truth

R41 - Muslims respect Yeshua, believe Him to be a prophet. Jews abhor Him, and some of them can speak rather perversely about Him.

Xenu is watching.

R43: With God, all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

It is near the least of the miracles. Talk to me of Lazarus, or the empty tomb, them we’ll talk.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!

[quote] I guess the charlatans who wrote the bible placed his birthplace so far away because at the time, no one ever dreamed anyone would travel there and find out it was all lies.

Where do you think the Bible was written and by whom?

[Quote] We are all god OP. We all are a spark of the divine, our soul is.

What twaddle

[quote]Do you go into "Walking Dead" threads and post, "Zombies aren't real!"

The thing is, “Walking Dead” aficionados UNDERSTAND that their zombies are fictional. The fans are not part of organized clubs that influence public policy or determine human rights based on Walking Dead mythology. So it in that case, yes - it’s silly to have a debate over the validity of their fandom.

R48 what would you call our consciousness? Or soul , flame whatever

You missed the point, r49. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread, move on. Going into a thread to shit all over the people having a conversation is a dick move.

Why are child fucking brain dead cult assholes posting here? Go fuck kids somewhere else. We don't want you here. Many of us escaped your clawed dead hands years ago. There are Christian summer camps full of children you can fuck.

All people interested in religion are child-fuckers? Is that like all faggots have AIDS?

No, they also molest children emotionally and psychologically. Not just anally. But that seems to be the favorite.

Don't forget self righteously spreading disease during a worldwide pandemic.

And funneling money from their tax free status to support anitgay groups.

And worming their way into politics. No there is no separation of church and state terrorists.

[quote] No, they also molest children emotionally and psychologically. Not just anally. But that seems to be the favorite.

[quote] Don't forget self righteously spreading disease during a worldwide pandemic.

[quote] And funneling money from their tax free status to support anitgay groups.All religious people are doing these things.

All religious people do these things? You are one messed up son of a bitch if you really believe that.

Look who's talking.

How about this?

I'm so glad 2000 year old retarded shit has made it's way DL in 2020. Oh tell us MORE of your childfucking wisdom.

What exactly is the "Holy Spirit" if it is separate from God and his son?

The mental gymnastics that people have to go through to explain stuff that shouldn't be so complicated is headache-inducing.

[quote] What exactly is the "Holy Spirit" if it is separate from God and his son?

It isn't separate. It is one of the personae God takes on now, always has taken on, and always will take on.

[quote] Look who's talking.

I know you are, but what am I?

It's hard to get their stories straight when they keep having to shuffle around all the pedophile priests so they can continue to fuck new victims.

Tell me more about the factual couple Adam and Eve. So they fucked and had kids. Then the kids fucked eachother, or fucked their parents and had more kids. The incest continued and we got all the posters on the site. I'm so relieved to know I'm the direct descendant of incestuous imaginary characters. Incest is best! The Christian motto.

The Amish paradise exists on earth

I believe in Al, our savior.

The basic story is pretty simple: There is an intelligent being of some kind behind the workings of the universe. That being, after spending thousands of years observing mankind, chose to incarnate as a human being. Even though he was violently murdered in the end, the overall experience living among us made the being more beneovelent and empathetic to humans as a whole.

Jesus is the "son" of God in the sense that God created him and continued to exist aside from him. But Jesus was also his own will put into a living body. So both are God at the same time. That's what Christians believe.

Historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who claimed he was the living incarnation of God was indeed crucified after being labeled a heretic. He was written about contemporaneously by multiple figures, one of whom, Tacitus, is about as authoritative as a single historian gets. Much of what we know about early Imperial Rome that we now treat as established fact comes from Tacitus' Annals.

[quote]You missed the point, [R49]. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread, move on. Going into a thread to shit all over the people having a conversation is a dick move.

I’ve noticed that Christians in particular consider any critique of their beliefs as being personally attacked or violated. So being “shit all over” can vary from outright mocking their faith to acknowledging beliefs outside of Christianity - including science.

Even being greeted with “Happy Holidays”in December can inflict emotional damage. Many suffer a persecution/martyrdom complex - I think it’s caused by transference. An extreme example of religious transference: Jerusalem Syndrome.

R70, the poster didn't come in to offer a reasoned critique of religion. He came in to call all religious people pedophiles. Your pretending objecting to his accusation are akin to claiming someone saying "happy holidays" is ridiculously disingenuous.

Every time a religious person opens their mouth to "explain" their magical beliefs shit falls out.

objections ^^^

and

objecting to someone saying ^^^

Religious people eat shit, and they expect, no, DEMAND, that you eat their shit too.

It's important not to conflate Christianity, a religion followed by over 2 billion people, with conservative evangelical Christian culture in America. They number less than 4% of all Christians. I don't like them either. But that thinking is flawed for the same reason it's flawed to say Islam encourages terrorism.

The holy spirit is basically the miracle of humanity being able to hear God speak to them and realizing that they aren't hearing things. A sensible thought of how to deal with a horrible situation is from the visit of the holy spirit. God makes salvation and spirituality simple; Human beings make it seem impossible.

R71 Every thread with a controversial topic will have trolls who simply want to shock or offend for attention. Christianity IS controversial on DL because a significant number of gay people in America and the U.K. were raised in Christian households and have been disowned and demonized by fellow Christians, including their own families. It’s a hot button topic, so I suggest you use the “ignore button” and change your sensitivity setting to “delicate flower” to deal with posters who offend you.

Already put the poster on ignore. I was responding to r70, not the pedophile-obsessive.

(R75) 2 billion stupid people who enjoy their sexism, racism, homophobia and lording over children. Religion is a mental disease spread tax free by the most evil people that ever lived. Control the masses and control the world. Evil incarnate.

God's identity crosses multiple perspectives. Just think of it as the religious version of intersectionality.

Brainwashing crosses multiple perspectives. Just think of religion as a version of a brainfart spread to control the masses.

Oh stop it, stop it, stop it! Can't we all just agree that all the white actors who have played Jesus are all hot pieces of ass? My favorite is Jeffrey Hunter. Fuck me Jesus!

[quote]God's identity crosses multiple perspectives. Just think of it as the religious version of intersectionality.

R80 Speaking of intersectionality, can you explain the “He” pronoun always used for God vs. the role of the feminine? I would guess God would have to be both male and female to give birth to humanity. Is Mary the female incarnation of God, and is the Trinity masculine?

God is male. Jesus is male. We are all dick worshipers. Seems right.

So who has the bigger dick, God or Jesus?

(R83) No, no, no. You've got it wrong. God raped Mary, a married woman. Jesus was a child of rape. That's the message. Rape is our lord. Deal with it.

R83 The first Christians were Jews, including Jesus of Nazareth himself. In Judaism God is neither male nor female as a matter doctrine. It's unclear why Christians moved towards a more definitively masculine representation of him. But it probably had some to do with the fact that Rome was one of the most strict patriarchial societies ever to exist. Even compared to other societies of that age, the Roman hated women. All Roman portrayals of women with power are negative ones. It's possible as the religion spread through Rome it was just shaped by that outlook.

(R58) You ADDED "All religious people are doing these things" yourself! What a piece of shiit you are. Lying piece of shit.

"Where do you think the Bible was written and by whom?"

By men, #47. Fallible, duplicitous, paid scribes with an agenda.

R87 Since Jeshua ben Joseph was an extraordinary healer and enlightened human it’s not surprising he wasn’t a Christian or into they idea of a church.

R86 I do think it’s ironic that a group who’s obsessed about the sanctity of family and the marriage between a woman and a man worships a single rapist father. However, Mary’s lack of consent seems to be VERY consistent with their views on women’s rights.

Actually Judaism was also incredibly patriarchal r87. Nobody needed to teach those old High Priests about patriarchy, or the authors of Leviticus or Deuteronomy. Or the Adam and Eve story for that matter. Whatever was happening, it wasn't ancient christians trying to get in with the new patriarchy. They were trying to get in with Rome in other ways, in part through antiSemitism. But never with having to overcome some mythical Jewish feminism. In fact, early on, women had actual power in the church, which was later taken away because that's just how the Abrahamic religions work. They may start with a few nods to women being people, but eventually it will become a Men in Charge, women submit and shut up, affair.

I think we should ignore all this arguing and get back to the facts of the Bible. One, Noah saved everything when God threw a tantum like a three year old, and put two of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH into a boat he built with his family. Sound reasonable. Then they all had incestuous sex and repopulated the world. Two, Jonah was eaten by a whale, but decided to live there for a while. Like Quint in JAWS. And three, that Jesus guy died but came back to life. But there was no body cause his devastated followers ate his body and drank his blood, like we do now, to deal with the grief. Sounds like something I'd dedicate my life to...study these facts...

R87 - Interesting. If Christian doctrine has been shaped by Roman interpretation, that explains some of the contradictions between Jesus’s pacifism and egalitarian beliefs vs. the Romanesque patriarchal hierarchies and warmongering that persist in Christian-dominated cultures. Great insight.

[quote] By men, #47. Fallible, duplicitous, paid scribes with an agenda.

That's really vague and useless.

Religion creates hate.

Jesus scrolling through The Data Lounge

Judaism is a patriarchal religion, but originally Yahweh had a female consort, Asherah. She was edited out of what eventually became the Hebrew scriptures, but archaeologists have found numerous images of her. The idea of dual male/female deities evolved into the concept of the ineffable YHVH that is worshiped today by all three Abrahamic religions.

I love imaginary characters.

R92 I was talking mostly about cultural portrayals in art and literature. In Judaism there and many female role models and Jews explicitly teach God has no gender. There are vanishingly few stories in Roman mythos that ever portray women positively. Almost never are they even shown as beings of any agency, except when it's evil agency like Cleopatra. It's a stark difference between the cultures. Even by the standards of patriarchical societies Rome (and Greece) were generally on another level. Christian treatment of gender in terms of how they portray it is much closer to Roman culture than it was to the prevaling Jewish culture of the time. I do think that shaped things.

And FWIW, outside of cultural representation, there were many powerful women in Christian societies. Abbesses. In practical terms many were far more influential than dukes or bishops. Hild of Whitby or Hildegard of Bingen are two legendary examples but even a common abbess of a medium sized community controlled land, money, and settlements. At that time in medieval Europe it was MUCH harder and more rare for woman to access that kind of power through secular means, though it still sometimes happened.

[quote]Jews explicitly teach God has no gender.

R100, Modern Jewish thinkers teach that God has no gender. But in Jewish literature - Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, and Haggadah, he is gendered. This is only natural, since the Jewish God had his origins among the Canaanites and other Levantine peoples. There was El Elyon, father of the gods, and Yahweh, one of seventy sons, to whom Israel was apportioned. Originally, El and Yahweh had female consorts; Asherah was the most commonly mentioned. She survives in the form of the Menorah.

R101 I'm not Jewish, full disclosure, so I may well be wrong. But my understanding of it is that the gendering of God in the Torah and other documents is incosistent, and that gender nuetral and feminine words forms are occasionally mixed in with masculine gendering. That's one thing modern Jewish thinkers point to as evidence it's the correct portrayal that God has no gender.

[quote]The first Christians were Jews, including Jesus of Nazareth himself.

A statement of faith if ever there was one, R87. You're confusing the characters in New Testament narratives for the anonymous authors, who were gentile. It's analogous to claiming that the Muppets wrote and created 'The Muppet Show,' based on the depiction of their origins in 'The Muppet Movie' (1979).

Jesus and the disciples are literary characters, [italic]depicted[/italic] as Jews.

Don't drag Kermie into this HIII YAHHHH!

[quote]That's one thing modern Jewish thinkers point to as evidence it's the correct portrayal that God has no gender.

R102, since 'God' and his characteristics are constructs imagined by human beings, there is no [italic] correct portrayal [/italic], save that which suits those who are imagining him.

Such a conclusion is natural for modern Jewish thinkers insisting, as they do, that God is ONE - essentially a modern statement of theology. Thus the plural [italic] elohim [/italic] - "the Gods" becomes singular, to their point of view. 'Spirit' (literally 'wind' or 'breath'; Hebrew 'ruah'), a feminine word form, must, theologically speaking, refer to God. The re-categorization of these words and concepts is really quite recent, and does not honestly address the original forms and their meanings.

R103 There is ample evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure outside of biblical sources. Obviously you don't need to believe he was the son of God or had mystical powers. But there are non-Christian, near contemporaneaus sources that talk about him as lving, breathing person. I could spend hours arguing about it but really it's all been said so I'm just going to link to Wikipedia. Virtually all mainstream historians, including atheists accept the premise the figure was a real person, it's not something still being argued.

[quote]Don't drag Kermie into this HIII YAHHHH!

R104, is Kermit really a frog, or a depiction of a frog? ;)

Kermie is as real as Jesus!

all that evidence is highly problematic if you dig, r106. That is still the consensus among biblical scholars and historians generally, but it remains highly problematic. It's not something being "still argued" because until quite recently it was never argued at all. It was just assumed.

and yes, Jews officially teach that God has no gender. So do Christians and Moslems. None of that has made the slightest difference in how actual women are treated in actual Abrahamic societies. It's always been shut up and obey from the point of view of Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

Some of you do illustrate an interesting point though. Athiests ask how some Christians can believe things that are patentely untrue like the story of Noah. People can believe almost anything if they WANT to believe it. Many athiests will forcefully assert, despite historical scholarship that Jesus never existed at all. For many, it's central to their worldview. These is no level of evidence that could ever convince them otherwise and it's all they will say until the day the die. But that is false, just like many things many religious people believe. Atheism as a belief structure can have similar effects on people to organized religion if it's a big part of a person's identity.

But of course many atheists will acknowledge the existence of Jesus of Nazareth just like many Christians would say they don't literally believe in much the bible but still believe basically in God. Some people are naturally more dogmatic, others are naturally more reason based. That full spectrum exists in every religious belief, including atheism.

The term "Religious Scholars" always make me laugh. It implies studying various piles of shit is scholarly. It's Scatology.

[quote]There is ample evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure outside of biblical sources... But there are non-Christian, near contemporaneaus sources that talk about him as lving, breathing person.

That is yet another statement of faith. I note that you qualify it as "near contemporaneous," which is to admit that they are not eyewitness accounts, and at best can only reflect what Christians were claiming.

[quote]I could spend hours arguing about it

Why? Because it's an affront to your faith?

[quote]but really it's all been said

Yes, and it has all been answered.

[quote]so I'm just going to link to Wikipedia.

An article edited by Christians, mostly citing the opinions of Christian theologians. The wording of the article is still being fought, with edits right up to today (see the 'revision history' tab at the top).

[quote]Virtually all mainstream historians, including atheists accept the premise the figure was a real person

Generally, they lean upon the unexamined assertions of centuries of religious writers. When it comes to examination of the actual evidence, it comes up short.

[quote]it's not something still being argued.

And yet, here we are.

Of course it's still being argued. Christians want to pretend that it's been settled, and it hasn't.

There is highly problematic and often late and contradictory evidence that Jesus existed. Some people who have delved into it are not convinced. It is a completely different category from those who believe every word of the Old or New Testament. Different situation altogether.

[quote]Many athiests will forcefully assert, despite historical scholarship that Jesus never existed at all.

The pretense to certainty is more often exhibited by those who insist he existed, rather than by those who are unconvinced by the purported evidence, R111.

Uh, how can we leave The Flying Spaghetti Monster out of this? Religious bigotry, that's how.

R111 Jeshua existed but the bible is nonsense for the biggest part.

Just one letter saying, "Damn, tried to get into Galilee to trade but the huge crowds following Yeshua bar Joseph made that difficult" would be worth a thousand Church fathers carefully explicating the words and teachings of Jesus.

"Jesus was a good fuck"

[quote]Jeshua existed

A faith-based statement. Based on what evidence, R117?

(R120) I made a months long study of my own feces and discovered that I am full of shit.

R120 I’m not a Christian. I am spiritual. I don’t know how to put myself in one of the existing boxes. I know there are powerful healers who guide us if we want and if we need it and if we’re open to it, he’s one of them. There’s nothing more to existence and consciousness than universal love in my opinion. We can throw the books out(sorry monotheistic believers).

For them that care, actually care, get to know the Bible Geek podcasts, vridar, the books of Richard Carrier. If you don't care that much, well, hell, you're not required. Just for them that do.

MAGIC! Everything, because, MAGIC!

well something, r124. I won't deny there is this religious longing all over the world, maybe forever? Not sure, it's pretty much impossible to know what truly prehistoric people thought about anything, but maybe. But religion, yes, it's more than just magic, although magic is part of it. But eventually it's whole systems of ethics, politics, economics, family dynamics, it's a whole damn world. Why? Not sure.

Magick R124

I want Jesus inside me quite deeply. And Joe Manganiello.

I honestly don't know what "I am spiritual" means r122. What is that? I'm not shallow? I care about something besides eating and shitting? What is the real "spiritual," cause I've never ever been able to figure it out.

R113 There's Tacitus' Annals and the writing of Josephus to establish the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. That's two sources from different cultures, who didn't didn't get the information from each other. Both men were well educated and had no reaosn to lie about that specific topic at the time they wrote their works because Christianity was not an influential religion while either lived. It had barely made it out of it's region of origin

I've had people arguement withmany different people and the only ones that offered any coherent theory say Tacitus' annals aren't real. They say they were made by Christians a thousand years after the events to make Christianity seem more real. That's completely unserious. The Annals are the source of many, many things besides the existence of Jesus, who is only mentioned once, and mostly derisively. They are one of the most cited works in Roman scholarship. There is not a single scholar of Roman history who believes they are fictitious. None. The only people who assert it are some athiests who want to explain away evidence for Jesus inconvenient to them.

Tacitus was almost 100 years after Jesus. Could he have just been talking to Christians? And Josephus is a huge damn issue. The actual passages seem to have been tampered with by Christians, calling Jesus more than a man? Does that bother you? It should. Tacitus' Annals are real, that was a thing for a while, but it was silly.

Again don't take my word for it. No athiest historians who actually publish work on the period argue the historicity of Jesus. You can argue the sources were all forged and planted, and that even athiest historians are lying about it as part of a large conspiracy. But that isn't all that different from Christians who will tell you with a straight face dinosaur fossils were planted by atheists to trick believers and that all paleontologists are actively in on the lie. All of them. It's deeper than reason for some. They will make what leaps they need to make to believe what they want

there ARE people who do argue the historicity of Jesus, r131. Most don't, but there are some serious people that do. Does it matter that many atheists take an historical Jesus as a given? Yes, I would say, yes. It matters that there is a consensus. But that is not definitive. And the people raising questions are interesting too. That is where I am. And the story is not that all sources are forged or lying. That is not the actual case against the historical Jesus.

R128 Someone who communicates with spirit, someone who is here to help the world heal a bit more. I honestly don’t know which description to use sometimes. Light worker, energy healer, seer etc Take your pick....

R132 Yes and there are people who argue that dinosaurs weren't real. Most don't but some do. Both groups of people are wrong.

The key is not what PEOPLE believe, but what scholars can demostrate in peer reviewed works. If there was a split in opinion between Christian and athiest historians, you'd have something to stand on. But there isn't. Some of the best analysis on Jesus of Nazareth is written by avowed athiests. Like it's just not that hard to acknowledge he was a real figure, and still say you don't believe he was divine or holy in any way. But for some, it's central to their worldview that he didn't exist, so all scholars are wrong, all the evidence is forged, etc.

And FWIW there were many people living among the Jews of that time claiming to be messiahs of various sorts and crucifixion was a well documented form of execution so the existence of Jesus isn't even weird given the historical context. It just upsets some atheists

I don't know guy at r133. That sounds like a lot of woo. But if you are a decent person overall, and you think being "spiritual" helps you do that, well, okay, fine.

Religion is made up B.S.

r134, you think that is what is going on here? You think questioning after the fact sources about Jesus, when nobody can actually agree on what kind of person he actually was, if he was a person, is just like questioning dinosaur fossils? Come on, you know that is not the same deal.

There are evolutionary theories that brain-wiring is responsible for religiosity because humans take longer than the average mammal to reach adulthood, so we instinctively yearn for a parent not only during childhood, but for most of our adult lives.

This supposedly causes psychological “transference” that attracts us to romantic partners who remind us of our parents, or are the parents we never had. By the time we discover mortality as children, we’re already conditioned to believe that an omniscient “parent” is there for us and will remain after our earth parents die, and this deity will take care of us after WE die - if we obey the rules.

Creating the “rules” has obviously been a tool used by people who want to wield power over others, which is why patriarchal, conservative cranks like Jordan Peterson argue that civilization will cease to exist without religion. I think belief in God helps to ease existential angst, but when that belief is used to oppress people, it becomes extremely toxic.

and you are right that questioning crucifixion is actually a silly thing, because a lot of people were crucified. But that is actually a Christian argument. That nobody would ever imagine a saviour crucified, so Jesus is obviously real. It's false on every level, but it's not an argument about the Jesus deniers. It's an argument against the Jesus defenders.

R135 as someone who spent most of his life as an atheist I can relate. I mean it. I also don’t know how to explain the energy work in a few phrases. You try to heal your own traumas, you try and help heal others essentially. Meditation is essential in the process. You don’t judge, you treat everything that exists with love and respect as well as you can.

If you are a good guy, r140, you are a good guy. hell, I won't pretend to be there. If you are there, well, good. Enjoy your life.

ATHEIST, not ATHIEST, ffs.

a- = without

theos = god

-ism = denotes a system, doctrine, etc.

When I see that misspelling, I stop reading the person who wrote it, because no one who is well-read in the subject could make that mistake.

For the Jesus was real people: What was he like. If you don't accept that he was the Son of God, Magical Being, what do you accept? What was he? A great thinker? A great teacher? A great spirit? What?

[quote] You think questioning after the fact sources about Jesus

I assure you Tacitus' Annals and the writings of Josephus have been scrutinized heavily. People have asked these questions as they ask them about any historical document written in any time period. And all mainstream scholars believe both documents to be genuinine (neither being forged), that both writers believed what they were saying to be true, and that both would be in a position to know if such a thing were true. In Tacitus' case, his work is the basis of a huge amount of Roman scholarship, so it has gotten more scruitiny than most sources.

[quote] when nobody can actually agree on what kind of person he actually was, if he was a person

Now THIS is true and accurate. All we can say with fair historical certainty is true is that a man claiming to be the son of God was active in the region in the time, and that he was executed by a Roman official, namely Pontius Pilate. No one knows exactly what he taught, how big his following was while he lived, or any other specific facts. All we are relatively certain of is that he lived and was executed. The bible of course says a lot of specific things but no historian treats it as a serious primary source. Also we know Pontius Pilate was indeed the roman offical overseeing Judea at the time Tacitus alleges this happened. We have physical evidence

R142 I apologize for my spelling and grammatical mistakes. It's not the thing I'm most focused on. But I think my arguments deserve to stand on their own merits.

r144, NOBODY thinks Josephus's words: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Nobody thinks that was authentic. Nobody. Stop your nonsense.

R146 Your "nobody" includes literally all mainstream historians. But you demonstrate my point. When people want to believe something they will, the evidence doesn't matter. They will just say it's fake.

Josephus lived and died a Jew. He never thought Jesus was someone "if indeed one ought to call him a man" Or who "performed surprising deeds" or "was the Christ." You are trapped inside a story. Break free.

Not believing Jesus was a historical figure is akin to being a flat earther. You have to believe all of academia is in on the conspiracy. That's the only way it holds up.

no you just have to raise a few questions r149. It's not a new religion. It's just some questions.

R141 not there mate. Simply trying to do the best that I can. There is no such thing as sin in my opinion, that’s just a way to bash us and force us into a system so we can be demure. So we’ll never feel good enough though we are enough. Peace of mind and spiritual well being boils done to accepting that we are doing what we can when we have positive intentions in my opinion. No not talking about the traumatised criminals and killers. Illness surely is a thing.

Not going read the whole thread, which I'm sure is a trolling thread. To a Christian, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are not separate gods, but one singular God in three persons, indivisible. One way to think about is your own earthly father he is your father, his parents' son, his spouse's husband, a friend to his friends, a worker to his employer, etc. yet he is one singular person, and all his aspects add up to create his whole being.

well okay then r152. Was there a Jesus? What was he like?

R153 You either have faith and accept what is written in the Bible about him or not. You can accept the historicity presented by academics or not. I'm not going to try and convert you. In a modern Western nation, people know the story of Jesus, if they choose to not believe them it is on them. I believe that the best witness in the modern world is to simply try to live as Jesus taught, if someone then asks why, that is when you share the reason why.

In college, my car broke down when I was going home for the weekend. I was stuck at a gas station with many threatening type people. An older man pulled up to help me. He took me to a garage and bought me a new battery, because he said it wouldn't be safe for me to stay there, after dark. Before I left, I asked him why he helped me? He said it was because he was a Christian and a Deacon, and he was doing what Jesus taught. He never tried to "save" me he just helped me. He just lived his faith. That is what a true Christian is. It isn't about controlling other people, it is about controlling yourself and to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Again, WHY are all these insane religious kooks on this GAY page? We don't want you assholes here. We're DONE with it.

God is an asshole and a psycho.

yeah, that won't cut it r152. But thanks.

R157 Sorry, if it doesn't give you the answer you are looking for but it is the orthodox Christian view. Jesus and God the Father, are not seen as separate beings. They are both the same being, therefore they are both God. However, they are the same being, not multiple gods.

well fair enough r158. It's all probably made up, but that's okay. I'm not that bothered by made up things and historical accidents as I get older. There may never have been a Jesus at all, but if you absolutely need there to be to make you a happier, better person, well, so be it.

Or maybe we should all just become Hindu. Let's incorporate all gods into the One True God. Everyone is an aspect. Everything is Sacred. Let's do this thing.

[quote] When people want to believe something, they will...

r147, agreed. Way back before the Christian Era, in 349 to be exact, my old friend Demosthenes (we were boys together) once told me: "A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true."

r147

and now everyone's gone. oh well, my playground.

Well, I've always been intrigued by the Gnostics, the whole hidden God, visible but evil (or at least ignorant) God, does kind of make sense for this world as we see it before us. Much more sense than the All Knowing, All Wise, All Loving God that Christians are so intent on selling.

oops, not my playground. sorry Johnny.

and I'm trying to be mature, trying to be accepting, trying to be loving, but dammit r161, Demosthones was WAY BEFORE 349. Dammit!!!

r164, He told me he was born in 384. And I distinctly, if sadly, remember he died in 322. Are you saying my childhood friend was lying to me? Oh, and I'm pretty sure he'd be pissed that you misspelled his name. It's correctly spelled Demosthenes.

hmmm, you may be right. you may be doing that BC thing. Or BCE thing. and its weird spelling. But I will withdraw the complaint.

[quote]Your "nobody" includes literally all mainstream historians.

Untrue, R147 - *all* mainstream historians do not specialize in authenticating the text of Josephus to the point of validating testimony about Jesus Christ, which is in any case of no particular importance to anyone but Christians. And it is pretty much only Christians that defend that passage.

In the view of critical scholarship, Josephus does not mention Christ at all. The "Testimonia Flavianum" (Antiquities 18.3.3; 20.9.1) are interpolations unattested before the 4th century CE. Within critical scholarship, Ken Olson has made a compelling case that the larger of the two passages (18.3.3) was composed in its entirety by Eusebius (see link below).

The secondary passage, the so-called "Jamesian reference," has been answered ably by Richard Carrier in his book, 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑊𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑡 (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 337-338. In fact, Carrier puts to rest any possibility that either passage is genuine.

Did you really have any other choice, r166? I'm curious as to what you mean by "that weird spelling"? Of what? And he did live before the Christian era (BCE). He would have approved of your willingness to acknowledge your error. (I like your spunk and your style.)

Fuck you, OP. And the rest of the usual suspects.

I was kidding Johnny. calm down. Demosthenes it is. Although it is Greek spelling, so we are actually transliterating. So "o" or "e" it's all Greek to me.

r170, I was trying to be lighthearted. Sorry I missed the mark. I meant what I said about liking your spunk and your style. Now I find out you know Greek, so I'm even more happy that you're posting. God knows, you'll forgive the expression, please, there are far more than a few posters who really do need to calm down. Cheers.

Oops. r171 is me to r170.

Oh we're good Johnny. I have to say, I have been a bitter damn bitch for many years. I am just not feeling it these days. I am happy with everyone. And we are good.

There is no point in arguing with PD on the existence of Jesus. You will never convince him Jesus existed. He is a firm believer that Carrier is right. That's just the way it's going to be.

That's not a criticism of PD in any way. It's just a warning that you are not going to get anywhere arguing with him. He knows the counter arguments. You won't come up with anything he hasn't heard before.

[quote]Nobody thinks that was authentic. Nobody. Stop your nonsense.

R146, there are also aspects of the 'Testimonium Taciteum' which are equally absurd, and can be regarded as probable interpolations.

The real problem with 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑠 15:44 is one of attestation, to wit: that nobody - not Church Fathers, not historians, nor specialists in the extant works of Tacitus (the originals of Books 11-16 were missing altogether) ever cited the story or mentioned it, for some fourteen centuries. Not even Eusebius.

In the 16th century, a copy of a single manuscript containing 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑠 11-16 was found in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy. Called 'M 2,' or 'second Medicean', it was dated to the 11th century, and thought to have originated at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino. The specifics of the text which it shares in common with the gospel narratives were likely added to the text by some Christian copyist sometime during the millennium of its obscurity.

Typical apologetics renderings of the text are usually inaccurate, for the manuscript from the Laurentian Library reads "Chrestians" instead of "Christians," agreeing with Suetonius's mention of "Chrestus," a Jewish rabblerouser described as alive in Rome during the reign of Claudius. It is probable that the line in Tacitus, "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations," originally referred to 'the Jews.'

[quote]You will never convince him Jesus existed.

I'm not hardened on the issue, R174. It's not some vital, intrinsic part of my self-identity which, were it ever destroyed, would smash my psyche into a thousand pieces. I could be convinced. But only by 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.

[quote]He is a firm believer that Carrier is right.

I have my own quibbles with Carrier, which however generally do not extend to his overall argument on the subject of the historical Jesus.

PD really knows his stuff. That is just a thing. You don't have to agree. You can say you have faith or whatever, but PD knows a lot.

Doesn’t evolution also postulate an Eve? That is, all humankind has a single common ancestor.

Whatever. You can say you'd accept evidence, but your bar is set so high no one could ever reach it. You can say you have quibbles with Carrier, but you always cite him as gospel.

The vast majority of scholars disagree. They say that taking a real historical Jesus out of the equation causes many more problems than it supposedly solves.

But you don't agree. Fine. I'm just warning the other guy who may not have been down this path with you before.

no, "evolution" doesn't say that r178. there is a theory that everyone has some mitochondria from some common female ancestor. But that is very different from everyone is descended from some original couple.

and r179, what are the "problems" that taking an historical Jesus out of the equation actually causes.

I heard Jesus was gay. That's why they killed Matthew Shepard the same way.

[quote] and [R179], what are the "problems" that taking an historical Jesus out of the equation actually causes.

Nope, nope, nope. Not getting sucked into this argument.

Honestly, people get to believe what they believe. Nobody is bothered by it. Jefferson was right. Don't pick my pocket, just believe what you believe. But there is no actual belief. Nothing is actually true.

Jesus was a real as Bugs Bunny. Except we have far more footage of Bugs Bunny.

fair enough r183. you don't need to justify anything. Your fantasies are you own, and you are entitled to them.

[quote]Whatever. You can say you'd accept evidence, but your bar is set so high no one could ever reach it.

It 𝑖𝑠 quite reachable, R179. It's just that the arguments of Christian apologists, who always throw up the likes of Tacitus and Josephus, don't constitute that evidence. They shouldn't for anyone else, either - not for anyone who isn't addicted to the intellectual dishonesty of Christian apologetics.

[quote]You can say you have quibbles with Carrier, but you always cite him as gospel.

A poor comparison, since I do not place anyone or anything on the kind of pedestal upon which Christians place 'the gospel'. Carrier's arguments haven't been answered, which makes him a useful tool in discussing the historical Jesus. If someday he is comprehensively answered, I will adjust my views accordingly. I am not stationary in accepting Carrier, but am always seeking new frontiers in critical scholarship.

[quote]The vast majority of scholars disagree.

The "vast majority of scholars", as far as biblical studies go, have always been Christian, and still are. It's also an 𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑚 argument, with which a legitimate point cannot be made.

[quote]Not getting sucked into this argument.

If you cannot back up your claims, then you shouldn't make them to begin with.

[quote] Your fantasies are you own, and you are entitled to them.

I don't get sucked into arguments with people who argue like 12-year-olds like this. This is not evidence of someone who wants to have an adult discussion.

[quote] If you cannot back up your claims, then you shouldn't make them to begin with.

The only claim I made was that arguing with you was pointless. I see no evidence I was wrong.

okay fine, r188. You are offended. and that is okay. You are loved, just not by God, who probably doesn't exist.

[quote] You are offended.

Nope. Just not interested in trying to discuss something with someone who doesn't want to discuss it as mature adults.

what is a mature adult conversation about the trinity?

The most that anyone can say, in terms of 'facts' about Jesus is that he is a character in a series of narratives, composed at the end of the first century and the early second century. It is impossible to prove or disprove whether the figure in these narratives was historical or non-historical. The only documents that attest to his life and works are documents of faith. We cannot go any further back to an original 'source' that will give empirical evidence of his existence. We can say that people have believed in this savior figure from the first century - though the figure of Christ has had many different interpretations through the years, and from the beginning Christians have fought each other bitterly and savagely in defense of their own particular interpretation. That battle continues to this day.

do you honestly want to have that convesation r191, or do you want to say everyone submit, dammit! Be honest.

Interlude.

This whole debate whether Jesus existed is strange to me. There seems to be enough evidence that he did. But zero evidence that he survived his execution.

well, honey, you need to dig a little deeper. it's okay.

[quote]The only claim I made was that arguing with you was pointless.

No, R189. You claimed that "The vast majority of scholars... say that taking a real historical Jesus out of the equation causes many more problems than it supposedly solves." R181 asked you "what problems?" and you responded, "Nope, nope, nope. Not getting sucked into this argument."

It isn't too much to expect you to back up your claims. The easiest way would have been to cite - specifically - one of the "vast majority of scholars" actually saying this, and let their cited explanation suffice. (I'm personally not aware of anyone making that specific claim, though.)

[quote]I don't get sucked into arguments with people who argue like 12-year-olds like this. This is not evidence of someone who wants to have an adult discussion.

Don't do that. You pulled much the same stunt on the other thread, and it's not a legitimate response; it's a form of ad hominem. As if from Seuss's 𝐼 𝐶𝑎𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑐𝑘 30 𝑇𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦, where you try to disqualify opponents you cannot face any other way.

I'm going to stop for now, because you seem to be feeling cornered, and that is not my intention. I don't want our exchanges to be adversarial. Perhaps we'll talk about the gnostics later. Tomorrow, or Monday.

PD you really know your stuff. it's delightful.

And I definitely DO want you to talk about the Gnostics.

[quote] because you seem to be feeling cornered

Nope. Not true.

[quote] As if from Seuss's 𝐼 𝐶𝑎𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑐𝑘 30 𝑇𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦, where you try to disqualify opponents you cannot face any other way.

I don't consider you or the poster agreeing with you an opponent. Because I am not opposing you.

[quote] It isn't too much to expect you to back up your claims. The easiest way would have been to cite - specifically - one of the "vast majority of scholars" actually saying this, and let their cited explanation suffice. (I'm personally not aware of anyone making that specific claim, though.)

I believe you know better than that. Or I gave you more credit than I should have. There is a vast body of Historical Jesus scholarship that counters the "Jesus was a Myth" people with precisely that argument. In fact, pretty much every scholar who counters it makes that argument.

[quote] it's not a legitimate response; it's a form of ad hominem

Nope, it is the only way to read his juvenile tauntings trying to get me to argue with him. That is not an ad hominem. He is acting like a child and because of that it would be pointless to try to engage with him. And an ad populum argument would be saying that Jesus existed is true because the vast majority of scholars agree he was. That was not my argument. It was that there are plenty of scholars who don't agree with the arguments you so often present as if tried and true and only arguments. So I encouraged your conversation partner to consider the many alternatives.

And that's all I'm going to say. Carry on. Be you. Leave me out of it.

God is made is man's image. So if you're an asshole, your God is an asshole. I don't mean it personally r156 for I understand what you're talking about.

r173, Thanks for letting me know we're OK. As for, being a "bitter damn bitch for many years" (which I don't believe), don't forget, it's never too late to be the persons we were meant to be. And if you, or anyone else, tells me that sounds like something that should be embroidered on a pillow, well, I'm not sure what I'll do. Probably just press on, I guess. Cheers.

r198, I specifically admire your reply to r189, though the following could be said of all your replies in this thread . Your tone remained confident and calm, and the reply ended on a conciliatory note. This should be a model for us all, even if we are not as informed about a subject as you, obviously, are. (Being areligious, I have no position on this thread, I'm referring only to your replies themselves, not that this matters.)

R15, try paragraphs.

r52 "Why are child fucking brain dead cult assholes posting here? Go fuck kids somewhere else. We don't want you here. Many of us escaped your clawed dead hands years ago. There are Christian summer camps full of children you can fuck."

The Jews willed be thrilled to read that.

R206 Always THE JEWS innit. Because that's what Father Murphy whispered into your ear as he was fucking your fat 8 year old ass.

[quote]The mental gymnastics that people have to go through to explain stuff that shouldn't be so complicated is headache-inducing.

r62, I think it's called "making it up as you go along."

Jesus fucking Christ for the last time, WHY is the God Squad here on DL? Go to the Fox Nazi News network site that's for idiots like you.

[quote]WHY is the God Squad here on DL?

Because there are a LOT of DLers who are Catholic School alumni who still BELIEVE.

Islam is the religion of peace.

ALL religions are about peace, R211. As in the peace they get when they banish or kill all the heretics.

Are Jews the only religion that never got nasty with non-believers? (Not counting the O. T.)

[quote] R26: The Christian god concept caught on bc Jesus promises eternal life and lots of people are scared of death. The Bible has its twisted parts and like other religions is just a tool to control people (“be good and you get a fucking treat when you die”), but there are some great passages and Jesus had some really good messages that endure.

No, Not just that. It caught on by numerous new concepts such as: “the first will be last and the last will be first”. By the primacy of love, by the forgiveness of sins, by the possibility of redemption, repeatedly, even of St Peter who denied Christ three times. By the equality of all before God. By God’s sacrifice of his own son for mankind. And mote

There is a Jesuit order new me and they’re all gay, if my gaydar serves me right.

[quote] R28: According to orthodox Christian theology, God is in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The word "person" doesn't mean "people," but comes from the word persona which refers to the mask that an actor wears in Greek theater. In other words, a role that an actor takes on. So God takes on three roles -- Father, Son, and Spirit -- but unlike a human actor, God is all three at once, forever and always. There is never a time that God is not all three. They are distinct but not separate.

Not just that, but the early Church (C. 300 A.D.) debated fiercely as to whether Jesus was divine, or man, or what was he? The Bishops gathered and prayed and debated and prayed some more. They voted and decided that he was fully man, and fully God.

Not, JUST STOP YOUR JUDGEMENT FOR ONE DAMN MOMENT, my point is, what R28 wrote, and what I just wrote, is, to my knowledge, unique until its day. It represents concepts that are completely new and different than anything that came before. if I’m wrong, I’m sure there will be someone to correct me....

R31/R32, I was taught that the only unforgivable sin was “despair”, meaning, the belief that even God could not not save me, being as awful as I (might have thought) I was.

However, your Lutheran pastor and my lay teacher were probably both wrong. Jesus forgave Peter for denying him. He forgave Thomas for doubting him. He even forgave the people who crucified him. Personally, I think God forgives everything that is asked of him with a repentant heart.

[Quote] The most that anyone can say, in terms of 'facts' about Jesus is that he is a character in a series of narratives, composed at the end of the first century and the early second century. It is impossible to prove or disprove whether the figure in these narratives was historical or non-historical

This is why I liken them to flat earthers. No it's not unknowable. Atheists actually committed to following evidence istead of stamping their and claiming it's all forged, atheists who study Judea's roman period secularly, and even just Roman historians ALL have concluded Jesus is a historical figure. None of the evidence used to reach this conclusion comes from the bible. PD cannot accept facts that don't agree with his worldview. But for the rest of you, if you are more willing to believe an anonymous account online over a huge preponderence of peer reviewed work from academics who study this for a living, much of it written by avowed atheists, then yes you have the mentality of a flat earther. Or some Qanon believer. You just want to agree with whatever makes you feel good. Don't prentend it's evidence based.

[quote] what are the "problems" that taking an historical Jesus out of the equation actually causes.

As has been explained ad nauseum on this thread, the Annals are a primary source for much of modern Roman scholarship. If it really wasn't real as you insist upon just because you don't like that he talked about Christ as a historical figure, then much of modern Roman scholarship, the books and documentaries you've seen is all bunk. No one believes that. I have been reading about Rome all my life and literally the only time I've ever heard the annals might be forged or tampered with is from atheists want to magically explain away his few sentences talking about Jesus. Go ask a Roman historian,without mentioning Jesus at all, if there's any evidence Tacitus is forged, they will most likely laugh. This is very much as saying paleotologists planted dinosaur fosssils and it's all a big fraud

Well, r216, what you and r28 certainly is unique. In other words, the deity took on human form while at the same time being its universal divine form, in order to ensure that the human form would be murdered horribly (a kind of suicide?).

This 'sacrifice' was undertaken in order that the deity could then forgive all the sins of humanity, even those sins that hadn't been committed yet. Which is something that the deity, being ominpotent, could have done all along at any time , if it wanted to, without the bloodshed. Why does any of this make sense?

R219 I don't think the idea is that God wanted Jesus to die or planned for it. Though maybe some people believe that. I have always understood it that God just wanted to walk among men. Jesus, upon interacting with people directly and living among them (maybe even marrying one) wanted to forgive all their sins. He felt that way even as he was brutally murdered. That higher love of mankind became a part of God after Jesus returned to him and made God more benevolent afterward.

That's supposedly the main reason why new testament God is only helpful towards humans while old testament God is horrifically violent towards them when angered.

[quote] R69: The basic story is pretty simple....

Every religion, if even perhaps every person, has their own ideas, but my own quibbles with what your wrote ....

Catholics believe Jesus was begotten, not made. He preexisted his own birth. He is eternal.

My understanding is God sent his son to show the world, which was making a mess of things, what love and sacrifice means. We now have had a living example to emulate.

But that is just my own understanding.

[quote] Catholics believe Jesus was begotten, not made. He preexisted his own birth. He is eternal.

Protestants and Orthodox believe that too.

R219, see the “example” cited in R221.

Salvation in Christianity is trickier than Trinity or the Incarnation because it is not as explicitly laid out in the Creed. The Creed says of the Son "who for our salvation was incarnate." It doesn't say that it was His death on the Cross saved humans. It doesn't say whether He says all or some. So some Christians believe Jesus provided a moral example, others that something transactional happened on the Cross. Some believe all are saved, others believe some portion of humanity, still others a specific number of people.

R222 Orthodox does, but only trinitarian protestent denominations do. There are many nontrinitarian protestent denominations, especially in the US

[quote] R83: [R80] Speaking of intersectionality, can you explain the “He” pronoun always used for God vs. the role of the feminine? I would guess God would have to be both male and female to give birth to humanity. Is Mary the female incarnation of God, and is the Trinity masculine?

I read the book, “The Aztec” about their first encounter with Cortez. He couldn’t understand how his own people could be beaten by a people who could not count to three. “They maintained [bold] one [/bold] God, consisting of a father, son, Holy Ghost, the Pope, the Virgin Mary, and all the lesser Gods they called Saints.”

I’m joking here, of course.

The Trinity was created so a cult figure, Jesus, could be considered God

[Quote] Catholics believe Jesus was begotten, not made. He preexisted his own birth. He is eternal.

It’s amazing how people just believe such utter BS

[quote] There are many nontrinitarian protestent denominations, especially in the US

Who are you thinking of here? I'd be interested in knowing who you meant.

Why does the Kyrie, said at every Catholic Mass, only reference the Father and Son (Lord have mercy/Christ have mercy) and not the Holy Spirit? Is the HS not party to the judging part of the biz?

R229 Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarians are the largest three organized groups that don't teach the traditional Trinity. But lots of modern non-denominational churches, the kinds millennials tend to go to also don't teach the Trinity.

Most older protestant denominations, the ones formed immediately after the reformation usually do teach it. Ones formed more recently tend not to. Again the groups that don't teach it are heavily concentrated in the US. They are more rare in Europe and close to non existent in much of the Catholic Spanish speaking world.

Those are precisely the three groups I guessed, but I didn't want to assume, r231. I'm sure it's not surprising to hear that a great number of mainstream Christian don't consider them "real" Christians. And because they are not groups founded in the Reformation they are not technically Protestants. But your point is taken: Some people who call themselves Christians are not trinitarian.

People are stupid. That's why we have religion.

It amazes me how people are baffled at the trinity but have no problem with the concept of: "Me, myself and I." It's simply aspects of one. Think of yourself as an emotional, mental and physical being. Three in one.

What really gets me is how these racist threads are allowed to go on. If this was about Islam or any other religion it'd be shut down by Muriel. I never realized was a bigot she was.

Doubting historical Jesus is a dumb hill to die on. It's just very likely that he existed as by Occam' razor. The other characters a real - Pilate and Herod father and son . we know that people declaring themselves messiahs was all the rage back then and the whole story of Jesus is really not out there for a religous myth. You can easily strip the magical embelishments away and end up with a believable to almost boring story. So once he wowed the hungry masses with a bunch of bread, fish and wine. Whoa, he can turn water into wine! Or maybe he was a charismatic lad and good at fundraising, whichever. It's not a "He killed a dragon" "He turned himself into a swan" or "He build a boat for all animals on the earth" type of myth. I did hear a theory that the bibical Jesus might be a combination of two real guys (taking the name from one but mayby other aspects from another) + the magical ambelishments of course. I suppose that is possible.

[quote]People are stupid. That's why we have religion.

r233, Probably so, but we also have religion because it keeps the poor from killing the rich.

[quote]Creating the “rules” has obviously been a tool used by people who want to wield power over others

So you would honestly want to live in a society with neither laws nor a moral code? You can not see the least non nefarious reason for someone trying to establish an anti-murder "rule"?

Oh for fuck's sake. people just want to be told a magic story. It's pathetic.

Okay, the thing with Tacitus, he is writing around 110 AD. He cannot be an independent witness to Jesus, who would have been killed about 70 years earlier. He is almost certainly talking to Christians about Jesus, cause nobody else really cares. Christians by that time are taking an historical Jesus as a given and telling stories about him. That is all we can really take from Tacitus. Certainly by that time, Christians assume an historical Jesus as an actual human being. And that's fine.

Another thing wrong with the whole story is Pontius Pilate. The New Testament authors pretty much invented a humane, decent governor and slapped the name Pontius Pilate on him. The actual Pontius Pilate was a vicious thug who hated Jews and hated Judea and never, ever would have had some silly ceremony where the Jews get to free some murderous traitor on Passover.

The only non-trinitarians in the U.S. are offshoot cults like the LDS and Jehovah’s witnesses. They are certainly not Protestants, and even calling them “Christians” is a stretch. If you consider Christianity a fable, non-trinitarian denominations are the fan fiction.

and that is kind of the problem r235. You "hear" that Jesus might be some kind of combo figure, because even without the miracles it's hard to pin down a "real" Jesus. And you go right to a miracle story, the loaves and fishes, to explain his appeal. It's a problem.

R239, isn’t it Tacitus’ writing where someone added Jesus was the son of god? We all know now it was a forgery to make us believe there were early, objective historians who wrote about Jesus.

There were none which makes us wonder whether there ever was a Jesus

I believe the neither schism between Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church was over the definition of the trinity.

It was something like one believed that the Holy Ghost was the father ‘s love for the son and the other believe d they were triangulated.

All utter bullshit

I think that might have been Josephus, sort of, r242. Somebody clearly added some nonsense about how Jesus was more than a man and was the Christ. The question is if the non-nonsense part is real, or does that tampering negate the whole passage.

R244, yes, you’re right—Josephus

[Quote] There were none which makes us wonder whether there ever was a Jesus

There is no reason to think any contemporary historian would write about Jesus.

I have two college-educated, intelligent Catholic friends. I asked one of them whether she really believed in all that stuff and she basically said no. The other one, I trod more carefully with. I said: "I can understand believing in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Ghost." That friend was offended. Same friend was also offended because, when I was a child, I was curious and took Communion (as a non-Catholic). We're not friends any more. (I think I said: "God would forgive me.")

I feel as though Americans have perverted Christianity to be something it never was. Rapture bullshit, wrath of God, judgment etc.

It’s bizarre to listen to myths and fairy tales being described like some kind of scientific taxonomy rather than cultural fables. The complex and esoteric language sounds line a Monty Python sketch that has gone on WAAYY too long.

There were the contemporaneous writings of the disciples, including St. Paul, which survive. Much was oral tradition that was written down later, as was the customary the time. Of his original 12 disciples, excluding Judas, 10 of the 11 died martyrs’s deaths, that we know of. That takes some kind of faith to do such a thing.

You’ll recall that Christ died as a disgraced nobody, practically. You shouldn’t expect a good embossed scroll with his life story as he grew up.

This topic has been discussed on DataLounge before and it always comes down to this: if you discount all the evidence of the historical Jesus, there’s almost no evidence he existed at all.

The Book of Revelation was the last one let in, and it was a big struggle r248. Wish they hadn't. It is the one book that most unhinges American Christians. It's a hot mess, and every moron with a bible thinks they have the perfect interpretation of it.

they are not contemporaneous Xavier. They are all, every single one, decades after the fact, if there were any facts. There is literally no contemporaneous, as in during the lifetime, account of Jesus. None.

and no, you cannot assume because centuries later people claimed a lot of people accepted martyrdom that that is what happened. Doesn't work.

The acts of the apostles, the letters of St. Paul? Were they not written shortly after Jesus’ death?

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. Pontius Pilate was a vey important man. He ruled Judea for about 10 years. Do you know what contemporaneous evidence we have of him today, aside from what is recorded in the Bible? There are a handful of coins, and a partial inscription on a stone somewhere, thought by some to be a forgery, only found in the 1960s, IIRC. Perhaps more, of dubious authenticity.

Jesus died in disgrace, among thieves. He was a nobody. There were those that knew the truth, but they were afraid, perhaps illiterate. No one should expect anything contemporaneously to have been written about him, that might have lasted to the modern day. Not when a powerful man like Pilate had almost nothing to prove even his existence.

None of the authors of the gospels met Jesus.

[quote] None of the authors of the gospels met Jesus.

That's not necessarily true, but likely. Archaeology has shown that the author of the Gospel of John knew Jerusalem before its destruction in 65-70.

NONE of this shit matters.

In love the story thar St. Peter and St. Paul converted their captors when imprisoned Rome.

Pontius Pilate was no softie, but he was warned by his wife who had a vision/dream that he should not condemn that man, Jesus. Some Romans headed those things. Plus, he was up against the Jewish holiday. He could let a delusional, inconsequential, nut job go, (Jesus) and appease the Israelites, and peace would be maintained. Peace was and tax payments was all he wanted,

There have been questions about the Holy Spirit. Here is from a Wikipedia, which I don’t necessarily vouch for:

[italic] The New Testament details a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during his earthly life and ministry. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the Nicene Creed state that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary". The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove during his baptism, and in his Farewell Discourse after the Last Supper Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure.

The Holy Spirit is referred to as "the Lord, the Giver of Life" in the Nicene Creed, which summarises several key beliefs held by many Christian denominations. The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19): "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the trinitarian formula "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction. In the book of the Acts of the Apostles the arrival of the Holy Spirit happens fifty days after the resurrection of the Christ, and is celebrated in Christendom with the feast of Pentecost. [italic]

I think Christianity was so popular are the time because it treated all equally, thus appealing to slaves and the underclass, who were otherwise often condemned to an afterlife like their wretched lives

It offered compassion and forgiveness to the contrite, perpetually.

It appealed to the better angles angels of out nature.

There were supernatural events, believe Ofer not,

Jesus fulfilled the scripture for the messiah.

Pagan religions were all about greedy, naughty, human-like, but not very nice gods.

That was definitely it r260. In most pagan religions, noble and royal dynasties claim to be descended from the gods. Priesthoods in many of these cultures were hereditary or restricted to members of a certain class. If you were born poor, like the vast majority of people were, you often could not meaningfully participate in religious life.

Christianity was novel in its age in that it explicitly said everyone was equal. The Christian God loves a peasant as much as a king. Most early gods were thought to particularly favor whatever race worshipped them. It was always meant to be universal. That was true of Judaism in addition to the Greek's mythology.

It helped Christianity spread like wildfire. Now of course many religions are meant to be universal. And Christianity wasn't the first. It was just unique in that way for it's time.

[quote] Priesthoods in many of these cultures were hereditary or restricted to members of a certain class. If you were born poor, like the vast majority of people were, you often could not meaningfully participate in religious life.

Or if you were a woman, r261. Then, as now in many, religions.

[quote]Christianity was novel in its age in that it explicitly said everyone was equal.

Except women. Again, then, as now, many religions.

The Christian God is obviously Jerry Falwell Jr. who endorsed Trump when Michael Cohen threatened to blackmail him with photos of Falwell and his wife fucking their 25 year old pool boy Giancarlo Grande.

Reality.

We are small sacks of people shaped water on a planet that will one day burn in its own sun's heat if we don't extinct ourselves first through our own idiocy and selfishness.

Earth from Voyager. All that humanity was, is, or every will be is on that one shiny dot. We are nothing. Accept it. Grow up and fuck off with your fairy tales. If you spent half the time, money, and energy you do on those fairy tales instead working to better the world and help the people around you, you'd actually be worth something for the second and a half your existence even matters in the grand scheme of things.

[quote]Pontius Pilate was no softie, but he was warned by his wife who had a vision/dream that he should not condemn that man, Jesus.

And just exactly how did the gospel writer(s) learn that handy bit of information about Pontius Pilate's wife's dream? Which of the disciples was an eyewitness to that event?

This is why the gospels are pious friction.

[quote] There is no reason to think any contemporary historian would write about Jesus.

So when one believes something there is no real evidence existed, that's called faith, not history

[Quote] So when one believes something there is no real evidence existed, that's called faith, not history.

If this is the bar then 98% of what we know of the ancient world is faith.

But based on the actual academic discipline of history there is no reason to doubt Jesus existed.

I don't think people understand how much of our knowledge of people like kings and queens during the dark ages of Europe, or the pharaohs of Egypt come from a single source often written more than 400 years after the events in question. And often written by people with huge personal stakes in what they're writing about.

There is more evidence for the historical Jesus than we have for many figures that are taken as fact to have existed. Two sources from different cultures, both written not long after the events they describe. And at least in Tacitus' case there is a complete emotional removal from brief account of Jesus' execution. Tacitus does not consider it important, he talks about it just explanation for unrest around the empire, unrest he finds annoying.

Tacitus is generally famed for his unemotional accounting of events, it's why he's greatly preferred to Livy, who wrote about many of the same events but wanted very much to flatter the imperial family and have a bestseller that was exciting and full of drama do he seems to have skewed some things. Livy actually lived closer to many of the events he wrote about than Tacitus did and still Tacistus is considered more unbiased and accurate

[quote] But based on the actual academic discipline of history there is no reason to doubt Jesus existed.

LOL of course there is. This is why many in academia believe Jesus likely did not exist. A strong theory is that he's a composite of two people.

At the time, everyone thought the world was ending so wanna-be Messiah's were a dime-a-dozen. The Jesus cult caught on, mainly because it convinced the Roman Empire to follow Jesus' teachings. Of course that way many generations after there was apparently as Jesus. So, there are strong reasons to doubt his existence.

[quote] If this is the bar then 98% of what we know of the ancient world is faith. But based on the actual academic discipline of history there is no reason to doubt Jesus existed.

You don't really understand the academic discipline of History, do you?

[Quote] This is why many in academia believe Jesus likely did not exist.

This just isn't true.

[Quote] You don't really understand the academic discipline of History, do you?

Much better than you apparently.

Arguing over fictional characters is proof of stupidity on a mass scale. Instead of starting wars and MORE people dying in the name of the "Christ" asshole why don't you all kill yourselves and meet your "maker " all the sooner. The world will be a better place and you will be a happy corpse.

[quote] This is why many in academia believe Jesus likely did not exist

This isn't true, belief in the historicity of Jesus is a near unanimous opinion among academics.

The was NEVER anyone named Jesus. He is FICTIONAL CHARACTER, a composite of even older stories. It's just storytime folks, and you are the desperate retards who lap this shit up. No wonder you all reek of it.

R274 typing untrue thing with words in all caps doesn't make them more true.

This is what I was saying earlier. Many atheists are the same as religious people in that they will ignore any evidence that doesn't match their belief structure. Many have an emotional attachment to the idea that Jesus never existed. They will never give that up. It's not a trait unique to religious people

Go masturbate yourself somewhere else. That's what prayer and worship is, masturbation.

Religious people have low IQs. Just a fact.

[quote] Religious people have low IQs. Just a fact.

I know it makes you feel comfortable to believe that but it's false. Just as false as the belief some Christians have that all non Christians are amoral.

It's easy to brainwash followers. That's why they recruit the easiest targets. Alcoholics, drugs addicts, mentally ill and depressed people, and of course, their favorite targets, children. So easy to manipulate and dominate. So easy to terrify. That's what religious people are, terrorists.

Religious people are immoral, they're just so sick they don't realize it.

Taking a knife to children's and babies genitalia is proof of insanity right there.

Having tax free status is the only reason churches and "ministries" exist. Stealing money from the government with no accountability. A cesspool for corruption. Just look at that obscene Crystal Cathedral. A monument to corruption.

That's why everyone should join Scientology...we're not crazy at all. Hail Xenu! Or be audited. Over and over and over...

It's not that you have to believe in Christianity, it's just that you'll BURN IN HELL FOREVER if you don't.

Leave us alone.

[quote]There were the contemporaneous writings of the disciples, including St. Paul, which survive.

None of the New Testament books were written by the persons whose names are attached to them, R250/Xavier. They are all pseudepigrapha, and all are composite works. Many of the epistles address 2nd century issues, like Gnosticism. At least one (1 Timothy) cites Marcion's work, '𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠,' by name. They are not "contemporaneous" by the furthest stretch.

[quote]Of his original 12 disciples, excluding Judas, 10 of the 11 died martyrs’s deaths, that we know of.

According to Eusebius, writing in the 4th century CE.

[quote]That takes some kind of faith to do such a thing.

No more so than that which motivated the 9/11 hijackers. Willingness to die for a cause one believes in is not impressive. And there's no evidence the disciples/apostles existed.

[quote]if you discount all the testimony of Christian literature, there’s almost no evidence he existed at all.

^^ Fixed.

^ Blah, blah, blah. God Squad faithful fuckhead.

I just hope God rapes another married woman so she can birth to a new savior to save use from these Anti-Trump Godless heathens.

[quote]Pontius Pilate was no softie, but he was warned by his wife who had a vision/dream that he should not condemn that man, Jesus.

That's a literary trope, R258, borrowed from Calpurnia's dream about Caesar, as related in both Suetonius' and Plutarch's 'Life of Caesar.'

I don't want Jesus to fuck me. I want to fuck Jesus.

[quote]I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. Pontius Pilate was a vey important man. He ruled Judea for about 10 years. Do you know what contemporaneous evidence we have of him today, aside from what is recorded in the Bible? There are a handful of coins, and a partial inscription on a stone somewhere, thought by some to be a forgery, only found in the 1960s, IIRC. Perhaps more, of dubious authenticity.

R254, the existence of Pontius Pilate is not in question. His appearance as a character in gospel narratives, though, does not validate them any more than the appearance of Abraham Lincoln does the storyline of 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑛, 𝑉𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝐻𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟.

[quote]There is more evidence for the historical Jesus than we have for many figures that are taken as fact to have existed.

An oft-repeated apologetical claim, R268, but untrue. See link below.

PoisonedDragon considers Tacitus "Christian Literature". Dogmatism at its finest.

Tell me PD, was Tiberius real?

How about Pericles of Athens? Was he real? We only have two sources for him. What about Penda of Mercia? Or Narmer of Egypt?

Or how about people names by just Tacitus? Was Agricola real? Or another figment of Tacitus' imagination?

I love how you chose Caeser, one of the most written about figures of that era, instead of the myriad lesser known ones we only know from one or two primary sources. It shows you know how little you have to stand on

[quote]PoisonedDragon considers Tacitus "Christian Literature". Dogmatism at its finest.

All up and down this thread, you keep misrepresenting what's being said of Tacitus in order to 'strawman' it. No one is saying that "Tacitus is a forgery." What's being argued is that a couple of sentences in a passage from a book that wasn't available to be read or cited until the 16th century is a Christian interpolation into the text. Like the 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Josephus, the passage functions like a compact creedal statement, summarizing the gospel narrative. Like the 'Testimonium,' it mentions both Pilate and the execution. The excerpt is by a Christian author, intended for Christian readers.

Like Josephus, transmission of Tacitus has been conducted exclusively through Christian hands, i.e. by Christian scribes and copyists. If they hadn't altered it in some fashion, it would probably have lacked interest for them, and would have passed into obscurity.

[quote] How about Pericles of Athens? Was he real? We only have two sources for him. What about Penda of Mercia? Or Narmer of Egypt? Or how about people names by just Tacitus? Was Agricola real? Or another figment of Tacitus' imagination?

The same form of apologetical claim has been made of all sorts of figures, R293, from Alexander, Plato, Aristotle, and Tiberius, to even George Washington. It's answered in the same manner. Read the article.

God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

[quote] Alexander, Plato, Aristotle, and Tiberius, to even George Washington.

The fact that you believe that we have similar levels of primary sources for George Washington and Tiberius is quite telling.

And you never answered my question. Is Agricola real? Him we only know about through Tacitus. There aren't other primary sources. Since you apparently consider him "christian literature", what about a non Christian person. Did Tacitus make Agricola up? Did any of the events of his life that Tacitus describes happen?

[quote]The fact that you believe that we have similar levels of primary sources for George Washington and Tiberius is quite telling.

You're not understanding what's being said, R296, probably deliberately. It's apologists who are making those claims, and Carrier is refuting them. Again, read the articles.

Here's another:

𝐎𝐤𝐚𝐲, 𝐒𝐨 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐬?

R297 he names other sources for Spartacus like Livy and Sallust (both considered inferior to Tacitus on most matters, Livy especially who is known to embellish).

But what about Agricola. Our only written primary source for him is Tacitus. No other historian mentions him because he wasn't considered that important, but Tacitus was related to him.

Was he real?

You're openly trolling now, R298. What possible reason would there be for a passage in Tacitus about Agricola to have been interpolated? Was Agricola the central figure of worship for a major religion? Was he a god, or demigod, to whom miracles were attributed? Was it claimed that he was the single object of fulfillment for a culture's entire scriptural deposit?

There is no comparison between claims concerning Agricola and Christ, and demanding the answer to such a question constitutes trolling.

You've now officially reached the point I've encountered with other Christian apologists, the claim that 'if Jesus Christ didn't exist, then nobody named in history did.'

[quote] Was Agricola the central figure of worship for a major religion? Was he a god, or demigod, to whom miracles were attributed? Was it claimed that he was the single object of fulfillment for a culture's entire scriptural deposit?

Christianity was NOT a major religion when Tacitus was alive. It was a radical cult. That is what Tacitus himself considered it. He attributed NO miracles or divinity to Jesus. It's not clear Tacitus knew anything about him besides his death triggering a wave of unrest. And at the time there was no culture that considered Jesus their most important figure. That wasn't even true of Jews in Judea at the time. Christianity took hundreds of years to reach the level of prominence it eventually did. In Tacitus' time it was just a minor annoyance for the empire. One of several, which is why he wrote only a short passage on it.

You realize Tacitus cannot be impeached as a source, so now you're trying to say everything else he wrote is true, except for the lines you don't like about Jesus. It's an incoherent argument which you're struggling

You can't use words in all capitol letters. Didn't you get the memo?

Which is why* you're

This is why you are infuriorating:

[quote] None of the New Testament books were written by the persons whose names are attached to them, [R250]/Xavier.

You state things like this as if they are established fact. This is not an established fact. This is the opinion of a very small minority of scholars. And before you whip out your "ad populum," that is not to say the majority of scholars are correct because they are the majority, but only to say that your statement is not established fact and is disputed.

I lurv me some established Christian facts.

[quote]Christianity was NOT a major religion when Tacitus was alive. It was a radical cult. That is what Tacitus himself considered it.

R300: What Tacitus thought of it is not the issue in terms of the difference between Agricola and Christ, which goes to the motive an interpolator would have for inserting a character into a text that otherwise originally did not mention them.

[quote]You realize Tacitus cannot be impeached as a source...

Tacitus was never at issue. That's been a strawman of yours.

[quote]This is the opinion of a very small minority of scholars.

Yes, R303 - the critical scholars, rather than the faith-based scholars.

[quote]only to say that your statement is not established fact and is disputed.

Just like evolution is disputed by creationists. The two positions do not have equal standing. It doesn't matter than the Christians find the facts infuriating.

[quote] Yes, [R303] - the critical scholars, rather than the faith-based scholars.

Ad hominem.

[quote] The two positions do not have equal standing.

Says you as if true, but just your opinion.

[quote] It doesn't matter than the Christians find the facts infuriating.

Immaterial, because I'm not a Christian and your continual statement of opinion as facts should be a problem for any critical thinker who continues to consider the value of the things you say.

Oh I see, it's not that Tacitus is fake. You just know of a conspiracy of Christians to insert that passage into his Annals, and no one on Earth but Carrier has been smart enough to unravel the plot. Ground breaking!

So tell us who carried out this "interloping"? I've sure you will have plenty evidence the line was inserted by someone other than Tacitus and it's not something you just believed happened on faith alone

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲

To understand the rest of this chapter, it will help to grasp the analogy of Socrates. He is comparable to Jesus in being a famous sage whose influence was profound and everlasting (he is the father of what we now mean by Philosophy, in essentially the same way Jesus is of Christianity) without having written anything himself, his influence being entirely through his 'disciples', who each developed communities that then fragmented and modified his teachings into many competing sects.

And yet Socrates' existence is not in any doubt, nor plausibly doubtable. Why? Because very much 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 Jesus, we know the names of over a dozen eyewitnesses who wrote books about Socrates; in some cases we even know the titles of these books, and a number of paraphrases and quotations from them survive in other sources. And in two of those cases, the books even survive: we have the many works of Plato and Xenophon, each of whom was an eyewitness and disciple to Socrates, who each recorded his teachings and reported stories and other information about him. We have nothing at all like this for Jesus. Even more unlike Jesus, we also have an eyewitness account of Socrates from a relatively 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑦 source as well: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠 of Aristophanes is a comic play specifically written to poke fun at Socrates and his teachings and disciples, written by an eyewitness contemporary to both; Socrates even sat in the audience of its first production!¹ What we knew of Jesus would be vastly more credible and quantifiable if we had anything even remotely like this for him. Yet we have none of the above: we have no eyewitness records 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙, much less from neutral or hostile parties; we don't even know of any written eyewitness accounts ever having existed (much less dozens upon dozens of them), and we certainly don't have anything like identifiable quotations from them or their titles and authors.

So why do we have so much better a historical record of what Socrates said and did, than we have for Jesus? It is not as if the first century was 'underrepresented' by writers interested in Judean affairs (see the next section). The unusually high rate of survival of texts from classical Athens is a product of medieval selection, not of any discernible difference in volume of literature produced. And yet if 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 had immediately become worshiped as the resurrected Son of God, and his every pronouncement the founding principles of a great Church, which went on centuries later to survive as the only institution with means and interest in preserving materials into the future, we would surely have nearly 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 written about him - which would consist of many hundreds of volumes of material: dialogues, discourses, biographies and memoirs from eyewitnesses, as well as numerous organizational documents such as wills and deeds and letters among his disciples (which even the illiterate could produce, through recourse to hired scribes, who were ubiquitously available specifically to serve such a market; in fact, even in the case of Jesus we can hardly assume no such scribes became disciples or followers soon enough after the mission began to put themselves precisely to such use).

To be continued...

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, continued

A viable theory of historicity for Jesus must therefore instead resemble a theory of historicity for Apollonius of Tyana or Musonius Rufus or Judas the Galilean (to list a few very famous men who escaped the expected record in more or less the same degree Jesus did). And yet unlike for them, that theory cannot involve the claim that records of Jesus existed but weren't preserved out of disinterest, since such records were exactly the sorts of things the many first-century churches 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 preserve, and most such records would certainly still have existed to be preserved by the time of Origen's library (at the very least), and many would still be around, through continual copying, even in the fourth century or beyond, when the Church had increasingly vast resources at its command - situations that never obtained for Apollonius or Musonius or Judas (or even Socrates). So where are all these texts and documents for Jesus?

There are really only two options available to the historicist that have any plausibility: (1) that Jesus was not at all famous but in fact so insignificant and uninfluential that he inspired almost no following whatever and was completely unnoticed by any literate person of the age (until - and except - Paul, even though he didn't know Jesus, and showed next to no interest in his actual teachings and story: see Chapter 11); or (2) massive quantities of documents were deliberately destroyed or allowed to rot away unnoticed and unread (somehow no Christian of the second century having any access to them or showing any interest in them). Neither is a particularly attractive hypothesis. A conspiracy to suppress vast quantities of information is perhaps least attractive of all; yet the alternative must be that Jesus was an uninfluential, unimpressive, unknown rabbi whom no one of any note noticed, and who made no significant impression on any literate person who ever saw or met him, and attracted no literate person into his circle of disciples and admirers - a person of such 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 insignificance as not to resemble in the least the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels. An unsavory conclusion indeed. Yet, what else can we suppose?

On the other hand, this vastly peculiar absence of documents is readily explicable if there was no historical Jesus about whom any such documents would be written, but instead only a small mystery cult targeting primarily illiterate converts and aiming to keep the bulk of its teachings secret (and thus 'off the books' as it were), from whom later churches diverged so greatly in aims and ideology that they had no desire to preserve more than a miniscule selection of the original documents (a mere handful of letters from the movement's earliest missions, then forged a great many more to suit their needs instead (Elements 11 to 14, and 44).

To be continued...

When you push PD on a specific thing, like does Agricola exist all he does is quote Carrier, even when when the quote doesn't address what you asked him.

PD is a believer who found a priest that really speaks to him. He knows in his heart his priest is true, any evidence to the contrary is a forgery.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, continued

Or we could resort in either case to noting again the great disruption in the church's transmission of authority and information in the middle of the first century (Element 22), and posit a third option for the historicist: (3) that 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 great disruption resulted in the loss of nearly all the documents there may have been. But that required granting that so awesome a destruction and loss of records really did occur, and was really that incredibly pervasive, even spanning three continents and dozens of cities. Which I suspect scholars will find even more unsavory than options (1) and (2). All of these options - whether (1), (2), or (3), or the denial of historicity - have consequences that must be accepted and not ignored. You have to pick one; because if you don't like the consequences of it, you can only avoid them by picking another. And that is going to pin you down, hemmed in on all sides by undesirable consequences.

The most desperate and implausible move is (4) to explain the absence of such writing among the disciples and apostles of Jesus as an apocalyptic disinterest in creating a written record (on which I'll have more to say in Chapter 11). Because if we grant such a disinterest, then we cannot explain the letters of Paul (which not only in their very existence refute such disinterest, but whose contents betray on every page the continuing need for writing things down and transmitting and preserving them in physical rather than oral form), which likewise leaves us unable to plausibly explain why only Paul wrote letters. No other missionary for the whole first three decades of the cult's spread ever wrote any letter to anywhere or anyone? What about the letters we know that churches wrote to Paul? (1 Cor.7.1)

We would them also have to dispense with the idea that there was any effort to preserve the story of Jesus 𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦, either. For any interest in the latter would entail an interest in the former. If preserving his sayings and narratives accurately was at all valued by anyone, they would have to have been recorded in writing early and often, so that the missionaries would have aids to memory (and church leaders a means to control doctrine, a key need evinced throughout the letters of Paul: Element 21) as well as a means of leaving communities and congregations with accurate information to rely upon and meditate on after their departure (since, as Paul letters attest, the apostles were not always present among every active congregation, yet disputes and questions constantly arose). These needs would be just as pressing in the face of a looming apocalypse - as again, Paul's letters attest (as well as common sense). In other words, historicists cannot claim the Christians strove to accurately preserve information, while simultaneously claiming that they saw no need to accurately preserve information. It can only be one or the other.

To be continued...

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, continued

Thus, there are only a few possibilities with any respectable chance of being true. Either all the evidence of the first decades of Christianity was actively (and very successfully) suppressed, or it was uncontrollably (and very thoroughly) lost despite every desire to preserve it, or Christianity was so small, insignificant and pervasively illiterate that such evidence never existed (and Paul was a lone educated freak in a sea of illiterate country hicks spinning yarns far and wide). You may choose the one you prefer. But you must then accept the actual consequences of that being true. First among them is the fact that we simply cannot claim to know the story and teachings of Jesus even the minutest fraction as reliably or well as we do those of Socrates - and yet even for Socrates every expert concurs that we do not know his story and teachings with superlative reliability. Plato's dialogues, for example, are universally regarded as predominately a fiction promoting the views of Plato rather than Socrates; indeed Plato himself entitles these dialogues a 𝑃𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑘𝑜𝑠, 'Fiction.' If such is the state of our knowledge of Socrates, our knowledge of Jesus must be regarded a thousand times less.

¹ See Luis Navia, 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠: 𝐴 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 (Amhearst, NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 29-31.

Richard Carrier, 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑊𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑡 (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 289-293.

[quote]even when when the quote doesn't address what you asked him.

Yes, it does - it goes right to the heart of your various claims. I have no doubt that you'll disregard all of it, but it may prove to be helpful for other readers of this thread.

All sorts of either/or fallacies in that argument of Carrier's

[quote]You just know of a conspiracy of Christians to insert that passage into his Annals, and no one on Earth but Carrier has been smart enough to unravel the plot. Ground breaking!

It's hardly about Carrier, R307. The passage has been under critical attack from the moment it was published in the 16th century. And there's been hundreds of instances of Christians falsifying, forging, and interpolating documents throughout history - it would be groundbreaking if they'd left this particular one untouched.

[quote]All sorts of either/or fallacies in that argument of Carrier's

And yet, R313, you don't cite or name a single instance of one. Unsurprising, considering how poor a record you have of correctly identifying fallacies, from 'moving the goalposts' on the other thread, to 'ad hominem' at R306.

You're boring me. I'm gonna go watch some television.

Well well well some little CHRISTIAN turd IS GETTING HER PANITES ALL IN A BUNCH.

How dare you not put turd in all caps! Turds are almost as good as Christians.

[quote] And there's been hundreds of instances of Christians falsifying, forging, and interpolating documents throughout history - it would be groundbreaking if they'd left this particular one untouched.

Ah, another logical fallacy. Because something has been done elsewhere has no bearing on whether it's been done here.

[quote] And yet, [R313], you don't cite or name a single instance of one.

What would be the point?

[quote] Unsurprising, considering how poor a record you have of correctly identifying fallacies, from 'moving the goalposts' on the other thread, to 'ad hominem' at [R306].

Untrue. You incorrectly understand those and ad populum. Ad hominem is to attack the character of the person rather than the argument. You attacked the faith of the scholars, not their arguments. That's ad hominem.

Didn't Socrates lay with men? I when I say lay I mean buttfuck.

Ad hominem? Ad nauseam.

Socrates wasn't gay. He just liked stories about Gladiators and strong powerful men...

PoisonedDragon, you’re flailing. Your point, such as it is, has been made. Now stop embarrassing yourself.

Thanks to the historically knowledgeable non-Christian who simply dislikes the kind of nonsense that PD spouts, and eviscerated it accordingly.

Jesus prayed to God at Gethsemane before He was arrested "Father if it be Your will, then please let this cup pass from me."

Jesus also tells us "He who denies me before men, him will I also deny before My Father."

Personally, I truly do believe that the God written about in religious text is also the Universe, Itself - They're one and the same.

Can someone explain "On the third day he rose again.?" I thought he rose once after being crucified.

I've lifted this image from another thread - thanks, dude. This pic was taken like 3.7 billion miles away. That tiny dot in the lower right of the image is earth.

It's referring to his cock. Jesus and his disciples were like the Manson gang. Holed up at the edge of town, fucking like rabbits, stealing food, going through garbage and the occasional murder. Lot's of fucking and "faith tests" for his followers.

Rolls eyes at juvenile R61.

Lots of stupid cunts on this thread. Every knows Jesus killed his father and that's why HE IS LORD.

Satan is the Christian god. God is dead and so is Jesus. Hear anything from either in the last thousand years? Satan is Lord God.

Well, r322, if people mean the Universe they should say that and not God. God has all kinds of connotations, and all the God is the Universe, God is Love, God is Everything, is generally just a way to smuggle in the Bible without admitting it.

[quote] Can someone explain "On the third day he rose again.?" I thought he rose once after being crucified.

Just died and was placed in a tomb on Friday (one day), then came Saturday (two days), then Sunday women went to the tomb and he was gone (three days). Now if you think that doesn't sound like being dead for three days, you would not be alone in that thought. Scholars have argued about how to fit three days in there for a very long time.

Paul doesn't seem to know the Friday-Sunday tradition, but he does know the three-days tradition. It's likely the three-days tradition was first and separate from the Friday-Sunday tradition and the reason it was so important was it meant Jesus was really really dead. Ancient Near Eastern thought was that the soul lingered around the body and could re-enter within three days. But after that, you were dead dead. (Imagine how hard it was to know for sure someone was dead and not in a coma or whatever.) So, the early Christians thought it was very important that Jesus be dead for three days so that they could say he was raised from the dead and was vindicated...he didnt just wake up or revive. And that Jesus didn't really die and just revived was an accusation leveled against early Christians, in fact. So they really wanted to stress...Jesus was dead dead.

Just a thought - Augustus (Octavian) Caesar ruled Rome at the time of Jesus' birth, and Tiberius Caesar ruled at the time of His crucifixion. You never hear anyone question the validity of the existences of the Roman Caesars, but many, and perhaps too many doubt that Jesus lived.

Yeah, but take away Augustus and Tiberias, you have a big gap in human history, and some inexplicable complications. Take away a Galileean peasant troublemaker and you still have pretty much the whole Roman Empire of the 1st century, unchanged.

[quote]PoisonedDragon, you’re flailing. Your point, such as it is, has been made. Now stop embarrassing yourself.

Aaaand there's the obligatory "you've lost the argument" post which always typifies discussions with you, R321/Xavier. Usually you use a sock to do these, and claim, "I've got no skin in this game, but...", posing as an atheist or agnostic.

[quote]Thanks to the historically knowledgeable non-Christian who simply dislikes the kind of nonsense that PD spouts, and eviscerated it accordingly.

Oh, is that what the principle argument sock was supposed to be - a "non-Christian"? Sorry, but there was way too much investment in the existence of Jesus and in the validity of Christian claims to put that one across.

And it's always the same combination of bad faith questions, fallacious arguments, and sock puppeting.

[quote]You attacked the faith of the scholars, not their arguments. That's ad hominem.

I didn't "attack the faith of the scholars"; noting that the scholars are 'faith-based' is an observation about the arguments they make, and which ones they reject. Faith-based scholars have a built-in presupposition that Jesus existed, and that the bible is true, and they will not permit themselves to pursue any line of inquiry which would invalidate those claims. It's why, for instance, they cannot concede that the gospels are 2nd century compositions, since it would tend to counter New Testament claims that claim they are the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Faith-based scholarship has presuppositions related to religious beliefs. Critical scholarship does not; unlike believers, they do not have a burden to demonstrate that the scriptures are untrue. But if that is where the evidence leads, they will not make intellectually dishonest arguments against it to favor belief.

And that's the Christian dilemma. Either Jesus was a really big deal that only later Christians happened to notice, or he was kind of a nothing blip that got executed like a bunch of other minor blips in Roman history.

So, if Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and remained a virgin forever, in what sense was she married to Joseph, the carpenter? Did they just stay together in some kind of common-law marriage-of-convenience that was never consummated? Did they never have any other children together? Did Jesus ever have any relationship with Joseph or learn carpentry?

Only Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Other Christians believe Mary and Joseph had other children. Also only Catholic is the belief Mary was born without sin or the immaculate conception.

The bit about Joseph and carpentry is muddy in the early tradition. Sometimes Jesus is referred to as a carpenter and sometime Joseph. There is a lot to say about Joseph, but i don't want to get into too complicated stuff. And the Greek word really refers to any laborer who works objects with his hands.

The Romans were the original Americans making shit up to make themselves look better than the truth.

PD, Xavier is not me and I am not Xavier.

Then your bad arguments tending towards defending Christian positions must be your own, R338. They're not the work of someone who's otherwise completely disinterested, but supposedly hates to see untrue ideas promoted. Assuming you're not just another sock of the same religious poster (and I still see little reason to think otherwise), that would be the reason Xavier follows you on these threads like a puppy, cheering you on. You're still employing socks, even if 'Xavier' isn't one of them.

"What would be the point?" at R317 is an example of your lack of support for your own claims. It typifies why you're just a troll.

well this is reaching the bitterness phase that all these threads reach, but it remains an interesting question.

[quote] You're still employing socks

No, I'm not. And the fact that you see some sort of conspiracy against you says pretty much everything.

Be well, PD.

A nonmagical, nonsupernatural Jesus, no son of God. Nope, not sure what is left there. Goober in Galilee? Well, okay, but why?

But why what?

Why preserve that memory? Why is a fairly uninteresting nobody who did nothing worth preserving? Now add a lot of magic, and an interesting back story (eventually), and maybe there is something. But the actual nonmagic story, well, why keep telling it?

Because that fairly uninteresting nobody had a huge impact on world history.

yeah, he did, much, much later. centuries later. That is the interesting thing r345, were they really dealing with an actual person from hundreds of years earlier, or had they kind created someone that was worthy of that new role?

kind OF created.

need a fucking edit function, MURIEL.

[quote]r8 We are all god OP. We all are a spark of the divine, our soul is. We live in a weird 3D world in the flesh where many of us have forgotten about unity.

okay, well we past the bitter stage and into the very weird stage.

xavier, you know whereof I speak.

[quote]R69 Historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who claimed he was the living incarnation of God and was indeed crucified after being labeled a heretic.

Except there’s no evidence “he” existed, dumbass.

Of course he existed! I see his face in my poo every morning.

[quote] Except there’s no evidence “he” existed, dumbass.

Except there is.

R346 after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth there seemed to be a core group of followers that formed and never went away. Contemporary writers wrote about them as fringe radicals. They were considered violent and fanatical, even by the standards of the age.

Over the next 200 years the religion spread like wildfire among mostly the urban poor but after that some wealthy and powerful Romans started taking it up, at first to the general populace's great consternation. It was probably viewed with the same level of frustration we view QAnon gaining followers in the modern day.

But by 313 AD it was declared the official religion of the Roman empire. The spread of it in western Europe happened later but followed a similar pattern. It started as only popular in among the poor of huge cities like London. The big difference is by that time the Catholic authority in Rome was established and they were able to more effectively lobby monarchs and nobles.

It's not super clear what encouraged the ruling classes of Rome to start adopting it in the first place. There's less obvious appeal to them than the poor. Nobles were well served by the religions of the day.

[quote]And the fact that you see some sort of conspiracy against you says pretty much everything.

Your words, not mine, R341. I haven't said anything about conspiracies, much less against me. Sock puppetry isn't a conspiracy theory, but a fact. Especially here on the DL.

On this thread (and on others, pretty much every time the subject of Jesus comes up), there's a series of separate accounts which all repeat the same talking points, which they all refuse to support. They all engage in the same bad faith arguments, and commit the same fallacies.

Child fucking retards arguing with child fucking retards. That's DL for you.

[quote]You just know of a conspiracy of Christians to insert that passage into his Annals, and no one on Earth but Carrier has been smart enough to unravel the plot.

Up to this point, I've never cited Carrier on the subject of Tacitus; only on the subject of arguments for the existence of Jesus. But he has weighed in, in 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐬, 𝑨𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝟏𝟓:𝟒𝟒, first published in 𝑉𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑎𝑒 68 (2014): 1-20. It has since been reprinted in Richard Carrier, 𝐻𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑟 1995-2013 (Philosophy Press, 2014), pp. 369 - 394. This latter includes an addendum on the Bayesian mathematical probability of Christian interpolation in non-Christian works in general, and in the passage in Tacitus specifically, which he places at 1 in 625, 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 authenticity (p. 394).

The Bayesian Model arguments have never interested me because I've never been able to follow them, but the rest of his analysis is interesting. There are a couple of points he makes to which I cannot quite commit, which is why I haven't cited him on the subject. But for anyone interested in running this particular peer-reviewed analysis down, it is as rewarding as that which he offers on the Testimonium Flavianum.

Again, you state things as if they were fact when you have no evidence. Neither I nor Xavier are using sock puppets.

Good post, r354. One little correction: Christianity was made legal at the beginning of the 4th century. It wasn't until about 80 years later that it was made the official and only religion of the Roman Empire, without checking for sure, I think it was under Theodosius in 395. But don't quote me on that.

Actually, it seems some rich Romans were intrigued early on. Maybe it was women looking for a religion that hadn't decided to exclude them yet, or make them second class. Maybe it was part of that "exotic" religions of the East that Rome went through for awhile. But it does seem Paul at least had rich friends, and weird Herod family connections.

and you are pretty much right r359. Christianity clearly had a voice in the 3rd century, a lot of important people were already getting involved. In fact, I suspect Constantine never went through any kind of "conversion," but was actually raised Christian. But he needed a decent story to sell the idea.

And as for Jesus claiming to be the son of God, well that REALLY depends on what gospel you are reading.

Too bad you idiots didn't stick with Baal

look how much xtian law has ruined the world in the last 2000 years

Among Christian traditions, a doxology is typically an expression of praise sung to the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is common in high hymns for the final stanza to take the form of a doxology. Doxologies occur in the Eucharistic prayers, the Liturgy of the Hours, hymns, and various Catholic devotions such as novenas and the Rosary.

The Gloria in excelsis Deo, also called the Greater Doxology, is a hymn beginning with the words that the angels sang when the birth of Christ was announced to shepherds in Luke 2:14. Other verses were added very early, forming a doxology.

The Lesser Doxology in Catholicism is:

“Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.”

So, they’re all accounted for, OP.

I really enjoy The Gloria in excelsis Deo.

Here’s a decent version.

-- So, they’re all accounted for, OP.

All three? One Hindu god has more arms than that

Did someone call?

Dead Head Thread

What would The Flying Spaghetti Do?

[quote] R264: If you spent half the time, money, and energy you do on those fairy tales instead working to better the world and help the people around you, you'd actually be worth something for the second and a half your existence even matters in the grand scheme of things.

That’s a very strange thing to write. The truly Christian thing to do, is exactly as you suggest, “working to better the world and help the people around you”. It’s not a foreign concept to Christians. It’s why they exist.

[quote] R265: And just exactly how did the gospel writer(s) learn that handy bit of information about Pontius Pilate's wife's dream? Which of the disciples was an eyewitness to that event? ...This is why the gospels are pious friction.

History is full of stories like this, where certain stories are repeated and carried forward as oral history. One I like is that St. Peter and St. Paul converted their Roman jailers. Or that the Centurion who pierced the side of Jesus later converted to Christianity. He is said to have been cursed with eternal life. In some traditions, Pilate's wife became a Christian.

There’s a cool scene in an Easter movie. Pilate calls for a bowl of water to ceremoniously “wash his hands” of Jesus’ judgement. Then there’s more dialog, and then he calls for the bowl again. He’s told that he already did so, and he says, “I did? So I did”, the point being, he was left with a guilty conscience. That’s just a movie scene, though.

The Roman Emperor Constantine apparently had a devote mother, who travelled to Jerusalem to collect relics.

The important thing about these stories isn’t necessarily the literal, historical, factual stories, but what we might learn from the story today.

For example, I like stories of redemption, and forgiveness.

There’s an interesting story about the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple by Herod. In the original temple, there was a holy of holies section in the temple where only the Jewish priests could go. When Herod set about his plan to rebuild the temple, nobody knew exactly were the holy of holies specifically was. And even if they knew where it was, it had to be constructed, and they couldn’t have stone masons and other builders defiling the holy spot, where only priests could go.

The solution was to make all the builders priests, so they could all trample all over without defining anything. Very practical.

Thank You, r264 and PoisonedDragon. This thread alone is worth months of DL subscription fees.

Still, I'm an enthusiastic, unabashed, unapologetic, lover of that annual, world-wide Birthday Party on December 25th.

And how fortunate I feel to be a lover of Christmas because I acknowledge that there are lots and lots of people who have legitimate, real, reasons to dread December.