Originally posted by bradybaker
Hahaha. The only reason that you people 'believe' that Jesus was divine, among other things, is because it was VOTED on in 325AD. The 'Jesus was god" camp barely won.
That sure is a solid foundation to base your life around eh?
As for your claim that Jesus did exist, as it stands there is extremely little, if any, proof of his existence. No eye-witness accounts, no record of him in the Roman Empire (the very people who are said to have crucified him), no coins, no statues, no evidence of any 'miracles', etc.
If what you're saying is true, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Church to win this case right? So what are you getting so upset about?
As for your assertion that we should see such frauds more often, take a look at the Mormons and Scientologists.
The only difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years.
Who is "you people"? I have always distinguished myself from Protestants on the one hand, and from the Idiot Bishops on the other. I have never prescribed to the Anti-Monotheistic Doctrine of the Trinity -- that being a heresy required to support the Anti-Christical Doctrinal Structures of Paul. You see, for the Murder of Christ to have as much Absolute Power as the Doctrines of Paul require, it was necessary to equate Christ to God Himself. For Free Sin to Work, God Himself had to be Murdered. But I don't believe this, and if you had been reading me attentively, you would have already known this.,
But all you know is to lump me in with "you people".
Well, I know who I can lump you in with. Retard.
And you really insist upon being a retard. "No eye-witness account". We have the Gospel of Mathew which speaks in the voice of a witnessing narrator. Who ever wrote the Book of Mathew was there... not a second hand account as with the Book of Luke. Some scholars believe the the Book of Mathew was authored by the 12th Apostle Mathias who had been voted in to replace Judas. No doubt Mathias had been chosen because he had been on the scene from the beginning, as is proved by the Book he was able to write.
and again, I was iterate my argument that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. and I can add that it was destroyed again 60 years later. Now, any reasonable person would see this as providing a reasonable excuse for not having much Primary Source Historical Data. You atheists point to the existence of Historical Materials regarding Roman Citizens, and suggest we should have the same kind of Material regarding Christ. Well, consider that Rome was not destroyed to the same extent of Jerusalem, and even then, when we compare the references we have to the Writings current in both the Latin and Hellenistic Cultures, there is a great deal that we know did not survive. For instance, we hear that a certain author wrote a certain play because it is referred to in a criticism that had survived where the play that is mentioned did not. So it would be your argument that we have no proof there was ever such a play, because you do not admit to Secondary Historical Sources.
As soon as you admit to the validity of Secondary Historical Sources, Jesus is quite evident. But if you insist upon Primary Sources, then you need to explain why you suppose that you would expect such documents after the Capital that should have housed them had been destroyed not just once, and not just twice... but perhaps three or four times since the time of Christ. But the Book of Mathew survives, and it is a Primary Source. You must then be either a liar or, as I have already stated, retarded.
|
|
Bookmarks