Thread: Jesus on Trial

The veracity of Jesus' existence can be made. However, if some people doubt his messianic status, that is nothing new.

John of Gamala? It's worth investigating either way.

Haha that's great

I bet that christian schools will be banned to. I think it's illegal to spam children with things that arn't sure to be true aswell

I really hope that the law kicks some religious anus. ^_________^ yay for the law. Yay for the fact that you can't legally force poop in peoples brain.

Literally and as a figure of speach.

Hmmmm.

The very fact a person can say something like that so close to the Vatican is a good indicator we actually do live in an enlightened age. I find it funny how the God-bashers come out when God is treating us rather well IMO. Even funnier how the same bashers become firm beleivers in prayer when the chips are down. Oh, well, such is life.

Originally posted by W.Stanford
Even funnier how the same bashers become firm beleivers in prayer when the chips are down. Oh, well, such is life.

Obviously a generalization.

I guess that means that perhaps we are nearing a point within humanity that religions will have to start proving things in order for it to be valid. Good. Nobody should be able to say that something is true just because.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
I guess that means that perhaps we are nearing a point within humanity that religions will have to start proving things in order for it to be valid. Good. Nobody should be able to say that something is true just because.

Religion can't prove anything spiritual, only 'faith' can.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

Religon relies in belief, We dont need to prove any of the damn things we believe in


Once we all die, you'll see

Jeez, Brady, you can't be serious!

Some Free Mason Judge in Free Mason controlled Itally finds some way of persecuting the Catholic Church -- the very Charter of the Free Masons in Europe -- and you take it seriously.

Get real. Anybody who believes in Cause and Effect must suppose there was a Jesus Christ. The World back then was simply too Cosmopolitan for the stories of Christ to have been a fraud. Too many witnesses.

Everyone knows that I hate Paul, but look at what Paul did. Paul exploited the Fame and Reputation of Jesus Christ in order to cement his own Career. So did the Real Apostles. Unfortunately, much of the Church -- the Messianic Jewish Church was destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. We must consider that a great many primary source historical documents were destroyed when the Capital of Messianic Judaism was burned to the ground. And yet Christianity had already spread across the entire Roman Empire -- and could not have gained such a hold unless there was a great deal of personal witness testimony.

Think about it. Do you REALLY think that people were ever stupid enough to believe in unsubstantiated lies on such a large scale.

Think about it. If Christianity could lie and succeed so well, then why didn't anybody else do the same thing.

For instance... nowadays people claim that Our Lady of Guadalupe was a fraud of the Catholic Church. More Converts came to the Church because of Her Apparition then at any other time in History... accept for that time in the First Century at the inspiration of the life of Christ Himself. But in regards to Our Lady of Guadalupe... if that was a Fraud, and such a successful Fraud, then WHY did the Church no repeat its success elsewhere -- in China, in India, in Africa, back in Europe or in the Balkans.

If such Frauds were possible, then we would see more of them. Wouldn't we?

But instead of thinking sensibly, you follow the lead of some corrupt judge who is only earning promotion points in his secret society.

Nothing but some manipulated idiot of a puppet.

Originally posted by W.Stanford
Hmmmm.

The very fact a person can say something like that so close to the Vatican is a good indicator we actually do live in an enlightened age. I find it funny how the God-bashers come out when God is treating us rather well IMO. Even funnier how the same bashers become firm beleivers in prayer when the chips are down. Oh, well, such is life.

What!? The Vatican has no worst enemies then the Italians. You need to remember that the Catholic Church used to have sovereign rule over what were called the Papal States. The Italians attacked the Papal States militarially and annexed these Papal States by force of violence. They have only contempt for the Catholic Church. Italian Government is dominated by various Anti-Clerical Anti-Catholic organizations. Masons and Communists.

The Vatican -- a virtual prison occupying not much more than a small city block -- is where the Pope was placed in virtual house arrest. Notice that the Pope will employ no Italians but relies on the Swiss Guard to protect what remains of Church Sovereignty.

Indeed, if only wishes could come true, after I could have every Protestant drop dead, and then every Atheist drop dead, I would then have every Italian drop dead, for their active betrayal of the Church. On the Day of Judgment I cannot contemplate how any Italian can possibly be seen as anything better than a most contemptable of traitors. They were not the first enemies of The Church, but they have been the last. And this Post is now telling us that they have yet to back off.

Originally posted by magicrules22311
Religon relies in belief, We dont need to prove any of the damn things we believe in *


Once we all die, you'll see *

That's Bull Crap! You are saying exactly what they want you to say. Do you realize it took the Atheists hundreds of years to make Religious People admit that they no longer Know that God is Real but only 'believe' it.

In Belief there is no certainty. So you surrendered certainty.

You might as well be an Atheist yourself.

If you don't KNOW, then what good are you.

Look at their viewpoint now. Look at their Victory which you concede to them. Any idiot can believe anything... and the more retarded they are, the sillier the Belief. And you personify it all freely by your admission.

You think you are witnesses for Religion, but your argument is only a betrayal.

But what do you know anyway. I bet you are not a Catholic. Catholics do not Believe. Catholics Know. Catholics have a History of Facts that support more than just a mere belief, but a certainty of knowledge. We KNOW.

While you are making yourself a circus freak for these Atheists.

Hey Leo, while I certainly don't hold your views of distrusting Paul (and what's that about protestants and atheists?) you brought up a point about christianity, its message. What did Jesus promote? A hedonistic lifestyle? Forty virgins will be granted to you? Becoming your own God and populating a planet? That probably would have gone over real well. Instead, it is love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. It is all based on loving God with spirit and with the truth. No fabrication will do.

Originally posted by Leo Volont
But what do you know anyway. *I bet you are not a Catholic. *Catholics do not Believe. *Catholics Know. *Catholics have a History of Facts that support more than just a mere belief, but a certainty of knowledge. *We KNOW.

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.

Originally posted by Leo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo)</div>

Get real. Anybody who believes in Cause and Effect must suppose there was a Jesus Christ. The World back then was simply too Cosmopolitan for the stories of Christ to have been a fraud. Too many witnesses. [/b]

Are we expected to believe the Homeric epics as well? After all - the culture at the time was very diverse as well.

And how does a culture being diverse = having too many witnesses? Christianity could have been seeded from tales, from a gnostic concept of the saviour, from a con artist, etc. Witnesses are not needed, get a few gullible people to believe you and it will snowball - especially in an ignorant, spiritually paranoid time.

The fact is that we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the historical jesus. This is the main point of the article

<!--QuoteBegin-original article
He said he told Mautone during the hearing that Righi was not asserting a historical fact when he wrote of Jesus' existence, but rather "an expression of theological principles."

Was there anything that you know of which points towards eyewitness testimony?

Originally posted by Leo
Think about it. Do you REALLY think that people were ever stupid enough to believe in unsubstantiated lies on such a large scale.

Think about it. If Christianity could lie and succeed so well, then why didn't anybody else do the same thing.

Have you never heard of scientology? It was made up by a (bad) science fiction author - people were actually in a room with L Ron when he decided to invent it. We have direct eyewitness testimony to this fact. In an age where virtually anyone can get reasonably accurate information about most topics at the click of a button, still people believe in a blatantly contrived religion Which involves ridiculous beliefs and zero proof.

If, in our age, people can believe in something like scientology, then how is it hard to
imagine christianity arising in a similar fashion?

[edit] brady beat me to it, oh well[/edit]
-spoon

[quote]Hey Leo, while I certainly don't hold your views of distrusting Paul (and what's that about protestants and atheists?) you brought up a point about christianity, its message. What did Jesus promote? A hedonistic lifestyle? Forty virgins will be granted to you? Becoming your own God and populating a planet? That probably would have gone over real well. Instead, it is love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. It is all based on loving God with spirit and with the truth. No fabrication will do.

Well, you demonstrate that you distrust Paul, because Paul quite dispensed with any Teaching of Christ and instead emphasized Christ's Death and not His Life -- that Christ had a Purpose but not a Teaching. Paul taught that by murdering Christ there would be a kind of Universal Forgiveness of Sins for True Believers -- for Fellow Conspirators, if you will. Paul taught, literally, that Jesus died for Sin... so that people could sin without fear of consequences. Gone would be any duty to Love. Remember, that Paul insisted that Works of Love were not only not required, but that any Good Works were indicative of Pride and Lack of Faith. Paul insisted that Election by God had necessarily to be amoral. One could demonstrate one's Salvation only by freely sinning. Now, tell me that Jesus would have agreed with any of that.

Also, as much respect as I have for the Teachings of Jesus, we need to remember that Christ was not original. He was important in popularizing these Teachings, but they did not originate with Him. In the Gospels, we have only one true Sermon from Christ that states anything that approaches the establishment of Doctrine, and that is the Sermon of the Mount -- cited in Chapters 5 through 7 of the Book of Mathew. But scholars have found much of the material for the Sermon of the Mount previously published in Esseneian Writings from perhaps a Century before.

But Jesus owes His importance to not so much being an original thinker as to being a very special Incarnation. He, after all, was Immaculately born of a Woman who had also been Immaculately born. We find that while Christ was the answer to certain Hebrewic Prophecies (and this is disputed and argued by many Anti-Messianic Jews who almost define themselves by their rejection of Christ), we find that there had been apparently been some Zoroastrian Prophecies regarding Christ, instanced by the Visit of the Three Kings from the East who had been prepared by their own Traditions of Prophecy for the coming of a King of Kings. Notice that they were prepared for a King and gave tribute and paid homage in that regard. No thought was given that this King of Kings would be murdered for the sake of Free Sin while still a young man. Paulist Christians would later point out passages from the Prophecies of Isaiah to indicate that the Messiah would be killed. But if we examine these passages from Isaiah, we can infer rather that Isaiah was referring to himself, and he was indeed himself murdered. It seems that the Jews had quite a History of resisting Religion, and do so with the utmost violence. Indeed, all the way back to Jacob, who stole the Birthright from his Elder Brother, we have an actual Blood Influence of Evil in the Jewish Race. God Himself sent an Angel to wrestle back the Blessing of God from Jacob that originated to Abraham. The Angel called Jacob "Israel", or "he who opposes God". As much as Paul set himself against Judaism, he stayed true to its spirit by insisting that the Purpose of Christianity was to Murder the Messiah and establish a Dispensation for Free Sin. One can see that in the World Today as Protestants, under the Spiritual Leadership of Paul, vie to be as selfish and amoral as any Jew.

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.

Dear Spoon,

Much of what I wrote to Brady can apply to your response. Scholars are quite sure that the Gospels include Primary Source Material regarding the Life of Christ. To deny this scholarship is simple Free Mason Dogma. There has been 400 years of Scholarly Investigations regarding the materials in the Bible and now recently regarding what are called the Dead Sea Scrolls. And nobody could look at all of that and determine that Jesus was a Fiction. There are simply too many Primary Source Materials, and then too many Second Source Materials that indicate that they are closely following Primary Source Materials.

And, yes, Historians do look at the Homeric Epics as a Historical Reference. Do they not speak of a War between the Hellenistic West and the Trojan East. Haven't Archeologists investigated and found that there had indeed been a Troy? And they got there starting with the Homeric Epics. But then Homer and the Homeric Tradition never claimed to be much more than Poetic -- essentially a Cultural Entertainment. Blind and Handicapped men would make a living by memorizing these Epic Poems and would recite them while begging for Alms. They weren't expected to be a newspaper.

But these Homeric Epics were at an earlier period in History... well, almost a Pre-History when we find that Homer came Centuries before such as Herodatus and Thucidites -- the Father's of History. Jesus came hundreds of years after the Time where History, as a reporting of true events with some notion as to the Ethics of reporting only the Truth, came into fashion and was culturally understood at the Cosmopolatan Level. Of course, it was violated here and there (The Gospel of John was a fabrication much like any modern Holywood screenplay that says it is 'based' on or 'inspired by' the Truth). But the preponderance of the weight of all the Primary and Secondary Sources referring to Christ are all in the Historic vein, and not in the tone of Epic Poetry. Indeed, look at Toynbee's definition of what an Epic Poem is. An Epic Poem is the First Great Work of a Barbarian People who has become nascently Civilized. A hundred years after the Greek Barbarians destroyed and absorbed a Civilized World, they introduce their own Civilization with the Epic Poems. The Viking Norse Barbarians in Europe did much the same thing in their Epic of Roland -- having become Civilized by osmosis they looked back upon their Barbarism with a degree of acquired Civilized Projection. This happens often enough. The Scotch romanticize their own barbarian past, and the Native Americans tend toward glorifying the real existence of bandits and thieves by remembering them as Warriors and Wise Men. But it has only been their exposure to Civilization which gives them Intellectual Inventory to superimpose Morals and Values onto a Barbarian Past that had been totally lacking in any of these finer attributes. So, in effect, every Epic is an implicit apology from a newly Civilized People for having once been Barbarian, and that is a charitable explanation. While preserving the basic Facts, the Epics tend to re-write the Moral Context of these struggles. These newly Civilized Barbarians cover over that they had been the bad guys.

Dear Spoon,

The popularity of Scientology as a Modern Religion is owing to the prevalent Secular Indoctrination over the last three Centuries that Religions are primarily only just Belief Systems. The notion of Religious Tolerance underlines this Indoctrination. You see, the idea that all Religions should be tolerated is confused to imply that all Religions, in that they are only Belief Systems, are all equally 'true' in that limited sense of being Intellectual Structures of equal validity.

This Secular Atheistic Dogma has been so univerally distributed that even may Religious People no longer question it. What it has lead to is the idea that if Religions are only to be Belief Systems, then the Prettier and more Aesthetically Appealing a Belief System is, then the more it deserves attention to be 'believed'. Truth is abandoned while people suppose all that is required of them is to believe something. And just as with all Aesthetics, they are subject to Taste and Fashion. Scientology, then, is simply a Designer Religion of Fashion. People 'believe' it because Tom Cruise does.

There used to be higher standards set for Religions. Indeed, we have the Story of Elijah the Prophet setting the Challenge to the 400 Priests of Baal. The Wager would go to the Religious Leader that could actually summon a Miracle of God. All of the Higher Religions of the East insist upon tracing back to Supernatual Origins, and rely upon Saints way before bowing to Philosophy, no matter how pretty their Doctrines -- though there is one large Sect to the exception that has been successful with the Sword and stories of Virgins being assigned to dead assassins. And the Catholic Church has built its fortunes on Saints who have demonstrated the sponsorship of God through miracle.

It is a decline in Religious Standards that Scientology can claim to be a Religion withou ever once demostrating their first Miracle. Hmmmmm. the same could be said of Protestantism, that has gone 500 years now without their first Saint.

Quadruple post? Wtf.

Originally posted by ataraxis
Quadruple post? *Wtf.

Each of the voices in his head are entitled to their own opinion. ~

Well, you wrote three posts but I'm going to condense my reply into one (as you should do also), so apologies for the length. I'm skipping the paul one.

Post number 1, addressed to brady

Originally posted by Leo
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.

No credible scholar, christian or secular, actually promotes the idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Hell, even the names we assign them appear to have been arbitrarily selected in the 2nd century, there are no signatures and the authors tell us nothing of themselves. It's odd that you pick Matthew as there is overwhelming evidence that the author copied much from Mark. If you look at any credible recent scholarship you will see this. It's worth noting that nowhere is Mark ever touted as an eyewitness, he can be rather tenuously linked to peter (as a secretary and biographer) but this is based on a single reference ~70 years after Mark was written and anyway, internal evidence suggests otherwise.

So you're expecting us to swallow that an anonymous manuscript, that written at least a generation after jesus supposedly existed and by copying another source (which is barely supportable as 2nd hand testimony) is an eyewitness account? You can see how people can seriously question the historical basis for jesus if this is the best you have.

Originally posted by leo
Much of what I wrote to Brady can apply to your response. Scholars are quite sure that the Gospels include Primary Source Material regarding the Life of Christ. To deny this scholarship is simple Free Mason Dogma. There has been 400 years of Scholarly Investigations regarding the materials in the Bible and now recently regarding what are called the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To deny this scholarship is merely to retreat from the fundamentalist fringe of biblical criticism. Try to discard you confirmation bias for a day and actually look around for the contemporary, mainstream scholarly viewpoint on this. The reason I say contemporary is that.. well, generally the last 400 years of scholarly investigations on any subject are bunk. Try the last 20 for reliable information. And for the record (and hopefully to point out how you need to learn a little on this subject) - the dead sea scrolls are the old testament - the have nothing to do with jesus.

And, yes, Historians do look at the Homeric Epics as a Historical Reference. Do they not speak of a War between the Hellenistic West and the Trojan East. Haven't Archaeologists investigated and found that there had indeed been a Troy? And they got there starting with the Homeric Epics[/b]

I wonder how many people believed the Illiad was a historical reference before we discovered evidence backing it up? The new testament makes very little historical claims, and those that it does (such as the census of Luke) are completely unsupportable in the face of modern archaeology. Hell, the gospels even get basic geographical facts incorrect.

And anyway, the correct comparison here would not be using the trojan war - it would be Odysseus. Do we think that his character is historical? No, because we have no evidence. Just like jesus.

But these Homeric Epics were at an earlier period in History... well, almost a Pre-History when we find that Homer came Centuries before such as Herodatus and Thucidites -- the Father's of History. Jesus came hundreds of years after the Time where History, as a reporting of true events with some notion as to the Ethics of reporting only the Truth, came into fashion and was culturally understood at the Cosmopolatan Level. [/b]

Take a look at this essay. It pretty much does everything anyone could hope to to debunk this claim that the culture at the time of jesus could be relied upon to report the truth.

post number 3, again to me. I'm flattered

The popularity of Scientology as a Modern Religion is owing to the prevalent Secular Indoctrination over the last three Centuries that Religions are primarily only just Belief Systems. The notion of Religious Tolerance underlines this Indoctrination. You see, the idea that all Religions should be tolerated is confused to imply that all Religions, in that they are only Belief Systems, are all equally 'true' in that limited sense of being Intellectual Structures of equal validity.[/b]

Much more important than the concept you mentioned, secularism has given us scepticism. No longer is is culturally acceptable to believe in things like the people in the above essay. Yet, in this culture where you can no longer believe in any fanciful spiritual construct without rational backing for it, people still believe in a wacky religion like Scientology. Again, your confirmation bias is showing, the rise of scepticism undoubtedly outweighs the change of method of belief. Whether or not people are emotionally capable of trying out new religions as equal to old, people are a lot less gullible than 2000 years ago. If scientology can be accepted in our society, imagine (or read about it in that essay) the wacky things people believed back then.

To sum up:
- I see no evidence for a historical jesus here
- Where's the damn evidence
- By the way, the burden of proof would be on you here.

-spoon

Originally posted by ataraxis
Quadruple post? *Wtf.

Well, how would you answer 4 different threads. Would you have me NOT give each individual some individual attention. I know, you wouldn't. You would be rude to all 4 people in just one sentence, wouldn't you.

Spoon,

What kind of crap is "no reputable scholar" would take a view different from mine. That is garbage. It is to toss out arguments that you do not approve of with a value judgment based on your expectations. You don't like it that the Gospel of Mathew reads like an eyewitness account, and you don't like the Scholarship that points this out, so you blow it off.

What you are doing is restricting your studies to only those who conform to your Dogma.

You are like that Faction of the Scientific Community that peer reviewed and rejected the Study in India which verified that the Holy Man Pralad Jnani had merit in his claim that he does not eat or drink. They essentially came out and said that no 'reputable' scientific organization would agree to what is clearly impossible. You see, the Scientific Community has come out and admitted that there are some possibilities it simply refuses to consider. You refuse to consider the existence of Christ and will simply ignore any presentation of scholarship that disagrees with you. But why should anybody listen to you if you refuse to entertain anything but what you blindly believe out of dogmatic concerns for scientific orthodoxy. Why should anybody believe a bigot like you?

Resorting to personal insults Leo? Tsk tsk.