Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:10:14 PM #151:	Saloonist posted... If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence. Wow, really? --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878260667] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence.</quote> Wow, really?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:11:23 PM #152:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... The biblical sources and the non-Christian sources witihin or shortly after the First Century are the only sources worth discussing. Can you find me a non-bliblical reference that speaks of Jesus truly coming back from the dead despite scientific evidence showing this is not possible. Yes or no? Again, we are talking about the crucifixion which you don't seem to accept. That is the topic currently at hand between you and me. I'm not going to talk about the resurrection, until we agree on the historical fact of the crucifixion. Please try not to deflect from this point again. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878260730] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>The biblical sources and the non-Christian sources witihin or shortly after the First Century are the only sources worth discussing. </quote> Can you find me a non-bliblical reference that speaks of Jesus truly coming back from the dead despite scientific evidence showing this is not possible. Yes or no?</quote> Again, we are talking about the crucifixion which you don't seem to accept. That is the topic currently at hand between you and me. I'm not going to talk about the resurrection, until we agree on the historical fact of the crucifixion. Please try not to deflect from this point again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:13:04 PM #153:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence. Wow, really? Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion. There is literally no reason to be surprised that the earliest writers about Christ were Christians. Imagine for a second that the Gospels didn't exist, yet Tacitus still wrote about Jesus' execution in the 30s AD. On this basis alone, no one would dispute Tacitus because it is not uncommon to write about an event decades afterwards. Yet you are only disputing the reliability of Tacitus now, because you are biased against Christians. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878260830] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence.</quote> Wow, really?</quote> Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion. There is literally no reason to be surprised that the earliest writers about Christ were Christians. Imagine for a second that the Gospels didn't exist, yet Tacitus still wrote about Jesus' execution in the 30s AD. On this basis alone, no one would dispute Tacitus because it is not uncommon to write about an event decades afterwards. Yet you are only disputing the reliability of Tacitus now, because you are biased against Christians.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:14:42 PM #154:	darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878260915] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:19:16 PM #155:	Saloonist posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence. Wow, really? Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion. I am not trying to provide evidence of anything other than the fact alternative theories exist that are just as possible as your theories and just as verifiable. Do you deny if in fact the Roman became a Christian bishop then that would give him a motive to have botched the crucifixion intentionally ? Do you really think things were so perfect where such events or interactions didn't take place? This was what during the time of Caesar? --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878261168] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence.</quote> Wow, really?</quote> Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion.</quote> I am not trying to provide evidence of anything other than the fact alternative theories exist that are just as possible as your theories and just as verifiable. Do you deny if in fact the Roman became a Christian bishop then that would give him a motive to have botched the crucifixion intentionally ? Do you really think things were so perfect where such events or interactions didn't take place? This was what during the time of Caesar?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:21:44 PM #156:	Saloonist posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... The biblical sources and the non-Christian sources witihin or shortly after the First Century are the only sources worth discussing. Can you find me a non-bliblical reference that speaks of Jesus truly coming back from the dead despite scientific evidence showing this is not possible. Yes or no? Again, we are talking about the crucifixion which you don't seem to accept. That is the topic currently at hand between you and me. I'm not going to talk about the resurrection, until we agree on the historical fact of the crucifixion. Please try not to deflect from this point again. I am not denying the crucifixion. I am accepting that it seemed that he was crucified and to an extent he could have been but some political mingling perhaps could have led the one meant to kill him to use his knowledge of the procedure to make sure he was likely to live. Jesus then could have told James to take over his ministry and tell everyone he was miraculously resurrected. This is the story I heard and it fits a possible narrative. Muslims saying it doesn't make it invalid because they are Muslims and you are trying to say that after asking me to accept the Christians' account. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878261303] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>The biblical sources and the non-Christian sources witihin or shortly after the First Century are the only sources worth discussing. </quote> Can you find me a non-bliblical reference that speaks of Jesus truly coming back from the dead despite scientific evidence showing this is not possible. Yes or no?</quote> Again, we are talking about the crucifixion which you don't seem to accept. That is the topic currently at hand between you and me. I'm not going to talk about the resurrection, until we agree on the historical fact of the crucifixion. Please try not to deflect from this point again.</quote> I am not denying the crucifixion. I am accepting that it seemed that he was crucified and to an extent he could have been but some political mingling perhaps could have led the one meant to kill him to use his knowledge of the procedure to make sure he was likely to live. Jesus then could have told James to take over his ministry and tell everyone he was miraculously resurrected. This is the story I heard and it fits a possible narrative. Muslims saying it doesn't make it invalid because they are Muslims and you are trying to say that after asking me to accept the Christians' account.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 12:25:28 PM #157:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878261515] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:26:40 PM #158:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence. Wow, really? Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion. I am not trying to provide evidence of anything other than the fact alternative theories exist that are just as possible as your theories and just as verifiable. Do you deny if in fact the Roman became a Christian bishop then that would give him a motive to have botched the crucifixion intentionally ? Do you really think things were so perfect where such events or interactions didn't take place? This was what during the time of Caesar? I know nothing about a Roman executor of Christ becoming a Christian bishop because you have provided no link for that theory. To me, if it is even a real theory at all, it sounds like a piece of Christian folklore about how one of the executors converted. But again, no link so I don't know anything about it. Could a Roman convert somehow be convinced to botch the crucifixion because he secretly became a Christian in his heart and wanted to save Christ. Uhhh sure. Let's see the evidence for it. I don't really understand what you're getting at with your second point. But I fail to see what is "perfect" for the Christians about their leader being brutally executed in the most disgraceful way possible on trumped up charges by a rival sect. And the biggest point is that I don't want to talk about other "theories" about the crucifixion that are baseless and evidenceless, when the traditional view has far more evidence. Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878261581] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>If you are going to continue peddling in sensationalism and fabulous theories I suggest you provide some evidence.</quote> Wow, really?</quote> Linking to a Sikh website, a Muslim book, and a documentary is not evidence. They have nothing to add to the discussion based on the merits of the historical sources that we have besides rampant speculation. There is no evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion, but many sources of evidence that he died under Pontius Pilate. And there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Paul or the historical narratives of the Gospels. They are consistent with what we know about crucifixion during that time period, and are reinforced by the later non-Christian sources that confirm the crucifixion.</quote> I am not trying to provide evidence of anything other than the fact alternative theories exist that are just as possible as your theories and just as verifiable. Do you deny if in fact the Roman became a Christian bishop then that would give him a motive to have botched the crucifixion intentionally ? Do you really think things were so perfect where such events or interactions didn't take place? This was what during the time of Caesar?</quote> I know nothing about a Roman executor of Christ becoming a Christian bishop because you have provided no link for that theory. To me, if it is even a real theory at all, it sounds like a piece of Christian folklore about how one of the executors converted. But again, no link so I don't know anything about it. Could a Roman convert somehow be convinced to botch the crucifixion because he secretly became a Christian in his heart and wanted to save Christ. Uhhh sure. Let's see the evidence for it. I don't really understand what you're getting at with your second point. But I fail to see what is "perfect" for the Christians about their leader being brutally executed in the most disgraceful way possible on trumped up charges by a rival sect. And the biggest point is that I don't want to talk about other "theories" about the crucifixion that are baseless and evidenceless, when the traditional view has far more evidence. Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:30:15 PM #159:	darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet? I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878261769] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet?</quote> I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 12:31:03 PM #160:	botched crucificion has no merit 1. holes in hands and feet and pierced side meant he would bleed to death if still alive from taken down 2. tomb was sealed with a giant rock and guarded by a roman sentry AND the seal of Ceaser placed upon the tomb to prevent opening; had he lived he would have died inside from not being able to exit 3. this is in addition to the scourging Jesus faced prior to crucifixion and the blood loss he already suffered as well as wounds opened in his back --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878261811] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>botched crucificion has no merit 1. holes in hands and feet and pierced side meant he would bleed to death if still alive from taken down 2. tomb was sealed with a giant rock and guarded by a roman sentry AND the seal of Ceaser placed upon the tomb to prevent opening; had he lived he would have died inside from not being able to exit 3. this is in addition to the scourging Jesus faced prior to crucifixion and the blood loss he already suffered as well as wounds opened in his back</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:32:16 PM #161:	Saloonist posted... Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels. Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs.I literally think all religion, including the pagan ones are ridiculous. I also think if a God or gods do exist then there would be no greater blasphemy than claiming to know their properties when you do not actually know their properties. PS: I like (but do not believe in specifically) the simulation argument and associated simulation theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878261879] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels.</quote> Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs.I literally think all religion, including the pagan ones are ridiculous. I also think if a God or gods do exist then there would be no greater blasphemy than claiming to know their properties when you do not actually know their properties. PS: I like (but do not believe in specifically) the simulation argument and associated simulation theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 12:33:55 PM #162:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet? I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact. like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878261972] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet?</quote> I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact.</quote> like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:36:23 PM #163:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels. Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs. 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878262113] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels.</quote> Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs.</quote> 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:38:44 PM #164:	darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet? I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact. like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878262233] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet?</quote> I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact.</quote> like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled</quote> Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:39:40 PM #165:	Saloonist posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels. Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs. 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it. Why does political mingling leading to a botched execution for the purpose of an agenda sound surprising to you? This LITERALLY happens all of the time. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878262288] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels.</quote> Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs.</quote> 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it.</quote> Why does political mingling leading to a botched execution for the purpose of an agenda sound surprising to you? This LITERALLY happens all of the time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 12:43:31 PM #166:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion? this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet? I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact. like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself. Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus the Jews had several reasons why they were not going to kill him themselves and that is why they asked for crucifixion rather than just stoning him themselves as is their law they had no need to go to Pilot, it was full in their authority to stone a man for blasphemy and was their intent had Jesus not been special read about how the Romans basically let the Jews do their own thing and you will understand a bit more you see this very thing happened to Steven and Paul in the New Testament, they had been stoned for preaching Blasphemy also, there is no new testament record of crucifixion aside from Christ the whole Peter being crucified upside down thing is Catholic myth and I would say has little historical merit, a tall tale but we do find Christians being stoned for blasphemy since you know it was the sentence for blasphemy, the thing that was done by the law of Moses --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878262489] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>prophet accurately said his hands and feet would be pierced</quote> http://vridar.org/2008/02/18/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet-psalm-22-as-a-non-prophecy-of-the-crucifixion/ Opinion?</quote> this is not an opinion arguing that "like a lion my hands and feet" has no implication to being pierced is simply being disingenuous trying as hard as one can to try and find error in a powerful prophecy answer for yourself this, what does a lion do with a man's hands and feet?</quote> I am just saying if "pierced" is not what it said in the prophecy then it's not a prophecy, it's an accident after the fact.</quote> like a lion means pierced it is what teeth do consider if Jesus was hanged; this prophecy then is false beheaded; prophecy is false burned alive; prophecy is false stoned; prophecy is false and the Sanhedrin court determined men to die by stoning for blasphemy this was Jesus fate and how he should have died except for a prophecy needing to be fulfilled</quote> Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself.</quote> Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus the Jews had several reasons why they were not going to kill him themselves and that is why they asked for crucifixion rather than just stoning him themselves as is their law they had no need to go to Pilot, it was full in their authority to stone a man for blasphemy and was their intent had Jesus not been special read about how the Romans basically let the Jews do their own thing and you will understand a bit more you see this very thing happened to Steven and Paul in the New Testament, they had been stoned for preaching Blasphemy also, there is no new testament record of crucifixion aside from Christ the whole Peter being crucified upside down thing is Catholic myth and I would say has little historical merit, a tall tale but we do find Christians being stoned for blasphemy since you know it was the sentence for blasphemy, the thing that was done by the law of Moses</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:44:33 PM #167:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Saloonist posted... Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels. Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs. 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it. Why does political mingling leading to a botched execution for the purpose of an agenda sound surprising to you? This LITERALLY happens all of the time. So are you going to provide evidence for this occurring in this case, or rely on wild, baseless speculation? Face it. All of the sources written within a reasonable time frame confirm Jesus' death on the cross. NONE of the sources within a reasonable time frame support the "conspiracy to save Jesus from execution" line. Not the early Christians themselves, not the Gospels, not Paul, not Josephus, not Tacitus. No one. Not even writers who would have benefited from such an assertion made it, like the rival Jews. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878262549] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Why shouldn't I believe that Caesar himself survived his execution and fled to India too? Our textual sources for his execution don't come until about a hundred years after his death if I recall correctly. EDIT: Btw Muslims base their belief that Jesus didn't die on the cross on a verse in the Quran which says that only someone with the appearance of Jesus was killed, but that he actually wasn't. The Quran of course comes about 500 years after the Gospels.</quote> Do you realize I am not religious so it is all hocus pocus to me and it's your job to try to convince me that your hocus pocus has more credibility than theirs.</quote> 1. You linked to the Muslim, whose basis for his belief is 500 years after the fact. Not me. So don't bring in a Muslim explanation, say it's an alternative "theory" and then insult me for destroying the "theory" you posted. 2. My argument for the crucifixion has nothing to do with religion. It is a historical fact well-established compared to any other event in ancient history. This is widely accepted by scholars regardless of denomination, and regardless of whether they are believers or not. You are the only who seems to keep casting doubt on this with baseless speculation, dressed up as "theories" despite all of the evidence provided and no evidence for these "theories" even though I continually ask you to provide some. The burden is on you to either prove a deficit in this evidence or to move on from it.</quote> Why does political mingling leading to a botched execution for the purpose of an agenda sound surprising to you? This LITERALLY happens all of the time.</quote> So are you going to provide evidence for this occurring in this case, or rely on wild, baseless speculation? Face it. All of the sources written within a reasonable time frame confirm Jesus' death on the cross. NONE of the sources within a reasonable time frame support the "conspiracy to save Jesus from execution" line. Not the early Christians themselves, not the Gospels, not Paul, not Josephus, not Tacitus. No one. Not even writers who would have benefited from such an assertion made it, like the rival Jews.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 12:47:41 PM #168:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself. Right on all counts except for one. Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. It's kind of like how one can dig through historical records of ancient egyptian military campaigns and find out that somehow they never lost a single battle. Sure. Right. And Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878262718] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote> Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself.</quote> Right on all counts except for one. Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. It's kind of like how one can dig through historical records of ancient egyptian military campaigns and find out that somehow they never lost a single battle. Sure. Right. And Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/01/17 12:49:09 PM #169:	The resurrection couldn't have happened because the supernatural doesn't exist. Though it's hard to argue with religious folk when their arguments exist outside of nature and logic. If any religion was true, it would lose all its mysteriousness. It would just be boring, explainable reality. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:878262796] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>The resurrection couldn't have happened because the supernatural doesn't exist. Though it's hard to argue with religious folk when their arguments exist outside of nature and logic. If any religion was true, it would lose all its mysteriousness. It would just be boring, explainable reality.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:51:09 PM #170:	darkphoenix181 posted... Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31 --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878262898] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus</quote> “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 12:55:02 PM #171:	ChromaticAngel posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself. Right on all counts except for one. Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. It's kind of like how one can dig through historical records of ancient egyptian military campaigns and find out that somehow they never lost a single battle. Sure. Right. And Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. "Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. " I wasn't really wrong, I just did not go into detail. Being who Pilate was he was directly appointed by Caesar and thus any issues with the Jews would be damaging to them as it made maintenance of order difficult. If the Jews come to Pilate in fear of executing a criminal then it sounds like they fear defying the Romans in their anger if he is to be tried or to be treated as a criminal under roman rule. It would also make sure fear stayed instilled into the people under Roman rule upon witnessing their displays of power and dominance. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878263120] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote> Romans killed many people with crucifixion on crosses and many very interesting types of crosses at that. That was how the Romans did things. Pilate made an order, so therefore Pilate's relevant men executed the order. Pilate was a Roman prefect who was appointed by Caesar himself.</quote> Right on all counts except for one. Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. It's kind of like how one can dig through historical records of ancient egyptian military campaigns and find out that somehow they never lost a single battle. Sure. Right. And Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf.</quote> "Cruxificion was reserved for enemies of the state. Rebels, traitors, and extremely heinous individuals. It was a very very special type of execution meant to publicly discourage people from joining the causes that the executed died for. If you suggest Jesus was Crucified, it would have been done because the Romans felt he was a danger to their established power. This in turn calls the entire peaceful hippy Jesus described in the gospels into question. To further it, Jesus was born in an area with heavy Zealot population. The Zealots, before the word was co-opted to mean other things, was originally a proper noun for a denomination of Judaism that believed in violently rebelling against the Romans. If Jesus lived in the area described by the historical records, he was most likely a Zealot and most likely advocated violence against the Romans. " I wasn't really wrong, I just did not go into detail. Being who Pilate was he was directly appointed by Caesar and thus any issues with the Jews would be damaging to them as it made maintenance of order difficult. If the Jews come to Pilate in fear of executing a criminal then it sounds like they fear defying the Romans in their anger if he is to be tried or to be treated as a criminal under roman rule. It would also make sure fear stayed instilled into the people under Roman rule upon witnessing their displays of power and dominance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:06:37 PM #172:	ChromaticAngel posted... The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time were, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878263800] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote> The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy.</quote> This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time were, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 1:10:02 PM #173:	Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new. Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878264017] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote> The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy.</quote> This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new.</quote> Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:13:42 PM #174:	sChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new. Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate. That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. Indeed, his followers do not seem to have joined in against the revolution leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878264255] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>s<cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote> The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy.</quote> This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new.</quote> Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate.</quote> That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. Indeed, his followers do not seem to have joined in against the revolution leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 1:16:44 PM #175:	Saloonist posted... That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this? --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878264437] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.</quote> The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 1:18:24 PM #176:	DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute The court lost the right to declare executions right about the time of Jesus. You can call the coincidence or convenience, but how interesting. And it might be that they gained it back shortly after Jesus seeing how they are found stoning Stephen to death only a year or so later. Or it could be that as said here they still had the right to stone people for blasphemy as such was their law but needed approval via the Roman prefect. Infact the very verse you quote shows that Pilate would have had no issue in this matter seeing how he said to them, "You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” but they were intent on crucifixion likely because it was a much worse way to die than stoning. It might also be that they could not kill a person on passover, not sure about this however. On the sabbath I believe they couldn't since they couldn't work. Passover is a little bit special. So all it would take to make the prophecy not come true would have been for them to decide to kill him when it was not passover. They could have waited a few more days and Pilate said "go ahead" and then stoned him(few more because of sabbath interfering) . But this didn't happen, how interesting. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878264544] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus</quote> “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31</quote> https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute The court lost the right to declare executions right about the time of Jesus. You can call the coincidence or convenience, but how interesting. And it might be that they gained it back shortly after Jesus seeing how they are found stoning Stephen to death only a year or so later. Or it could be that as said here they still had the right to stone people for blasphemy as such was their law but needed approval via the Roman prefect. Infact the very verse you quote shows that Pilate would have had no issue in this matter seeing how he said to them, "You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” but they were intent on crucifixion likely because it was a much worse way to die than stoning. It might also be that they could not kill a person on passover, not sure about this however. On the sabbath I believe they couldn't since they couldn't work. Passover is a little bit special. So all it would take to make the prophecy not come true would have been for them to decide to kill him when it was not passover. They could have waited a few more days and Pilate said "go ahead" and then stoned him(few more because of sabbath interfering) . But this didn't happen, how interesting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:18:44 PM #177:	ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this? So we have: 1). The Gospels depicting Jesus as a non-violent rabbi and itinerant preacher 2). ___________ source depicting Jesus as a violent Zealot Yet you choose not only to discredit the general depiction in 1), but actively believe the baseless speculation in 2). How telling. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878264563] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.</quote> The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this?</quote> So we have: 1). The Gospels depicting Jesus as a non-violent rabbi and itinerant preacher 2). ___________ source depicting Jesus as a violent Zealot Yet you choose not only to discredit the general depiction in 1), but actively believe the baseless speculation in 2). How telling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:20:41 PM #178:	Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878264683] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 1:21:08 PM #179:	ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this? Your "theory" is ridiculous. To claim he was a violent man and died then his followers all the sudden became peaceful martyrs who didn't fight back and got killed preaching a message of peace that literally says to "do good to your enemies" is quite farfetched. You might say the idea of miracles and God is farfetched but then you should believe them if you believe in something like this, seeing how farfetched it is. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878264716] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.</quote> The only evidence of him being this peaceful person is the gospels. Much in the same way that multiple North Korean sources have documents and video evidence that Kim Jong-Un scored 29 in Golf. Do you see the problem with this?</quote> Your "theory" is ridiculous. To claim he was a violent man and died then his followers all the sudden became peaceful martyrs who didn't fight back and got killed preaching a message of peace that literally says to "do good to your enemies" is quite farfetched. You might say the idea of miracles and God is farfetched but then you should believe them if you believe in something like this, seeing how farfetched it is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 1:22:22 PM #180:	Saloonist posted... Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878264777] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ToadallyAwesome 05/01/17 1:29:17 PM #181:	This topic is so off the rails. Saloonist is not someone to argue with. He is myopic and won't change his mind. He just wants to argue. I haven't seen a Christian Topic like this since the heyday of Proudclad before he softened up. --- http://imgur.com/QKdxwuI <cite>ToadallyAwesome posted [p:878265177] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>This topic is so off the rails. Saloonist is not someone to argue with. He is myopic and won't change his mind. He just wants to argue. I haven't seen a Christian Topic like this since the heyday of Proudclad before he softened up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:32:36 PM #182:	ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible. So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878265365] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible.</quote> So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:34:07 PM #183:	ToadallyAwesome posted... This topic is so off the rails. Saloonist is not someone to argue with. He is myopic and won't change his mind. He just wants to argue. I haven't seen a Christian Topic like this since the heyday of Proudclad before he softened up. I'm narrow minded and wont change ny mind? What about the people saying Jesus went to India or was a revolutionary Zealot based on no evidence, and double downing on such nonsense? --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878265452] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ToadallyAwesome posted...</cite> <quote>This topic is so off the rails. Saloonist is not someone to argue with. He is myopic and won't change his mind. He just wants to argue. I haven't seen a Christian Topic like this since the heyday of Proudclad before he softened up.</quote> I'm narrow minded and wont change ny mind? What about the people saying Jesus went to India or was a revolutionary Zealot based on no evidence, and double downing on such nonsense?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 1:35:20 PM #184:	so this gives evidence that indeed they couldn't execute a man on passover even if the Roman prefect gave them the go ahead because of Jewish law not Roman law "Therefore they DO NOT JUDGE [CAPITAL CASES] either on the EVE of the Sabbath or on the EVE OF A FESTIVAL" (The Mishnah, a New Translation, by Jacob Neusner, p. 590). In capital cases they come to a final decision for acquittal on the same day, BUT ON THE FOLLOWING DAY FOR CONVICTION" (Sanhedrin 4:1, The Mishnah, a New Translation, by Jacob Neusner, p. 590). from translation of this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah note the second part says they must have the trial the day before an execution, to be lawful this wouldn't apply to a Roman court also the next day was the sabbath which no work could be done by Jews --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878265518] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>so this gives evidence that indeed they couldn't execute a man on passover even if the Roman prefect gave them the go ahead because of Jewish law not Roman law <quote>"Therefore they DO NOT JUDGE [CAPITAL CASES] either on the EVE of the Sabbath or on the EVE OF A FESTIVAL" (The Mishnah, a New Translation, by Jacob Neusner, p. 590).</quote> <quote>In capital cases they come to a final decision for acquittal on the same day, BUT ON THE FOLLOWING DAY FOR CONVICTION" (Sanhedrin 4:1, The Mishnah, a New Translation, by Jacob Neusner, p. 590).</quote> from translation of this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah note the second part says they must have the trial the day before an execution, to be lawful this wouldn't apply to a Roman court also the next day was the sabbath which no work could be done by Jews</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 1:35:24 PM #185:	Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible. So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878265520] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible.</quote> So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory</quote> Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:50:55 PM #186:	ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible. So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted. Whether or how far Christianity would have expanded without Constantine is open for debate. But to say it would have gone extinct without him is grossly exaggerated. The movement was well underway before him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity But none of this has to do with your baseless belief in a Zealot Jesus. Why are you deflecting from that hmmmm? --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878266446] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible.</quote> So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory</quote> Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted.</quote> Whether or how far Christianity would have expanded without Constantine is open for debate. But to say it would have gone extinct without him is grossly exaggerated. The movement was well underway before him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity But none of this has to do with your baseless belief in a Zealot Jesus. Why are you deflecting from that hmmmm?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 2:15:06 PM #187:	Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did. You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible. So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted. Whether or how far Christianity would have expanded without Constantine is open for debate. But to say it would have gone extinct without him is grossly exaggerated. The movement was well underway before him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity But none of this has to do with your baseless belief in a Zealot Jesus. Why are you deflecting from that hmmmm? You're the one who started talking about all these christians taking up his mantle. Not me. And the claim isn't baseless. Jesus was born in a Zealot region. What you're saying is tantamount to some nonsense like Muhammad wasn't an Arab. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878267726] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not forget that the support is given to the depiction in the Gospels by the fact that the immediate followers of Jesus and their successors DID NOT engage in an actual violent revolution against the Romans which occurred shortly after his death, while other Jewish sects did.</quote> You mean his 12 apostles and another small handful of people all of whom are in the Bible.</quote> So no other people converted to Christianity from the early followers preaching huh. Doesnt matter how much you want to deny the basics of the Gospel narrative. Unlike your baseless speculation at the very least it is a relatively contenporary account, whether its trustworthy or not, unlike the 2000 year after the fact ChromaticAngel Zealot theory</quote> Christianity was very much in danger of being extinct until Emperor Constantine. So while there were converts, they were extremely small in number and heavily persecuted.</quote> Whether or how far Christianity would have expanded without Constantine is open for debate. But to say it would have gone extinct without him is grossly exaggerated. The movement was well underway before him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity But none of this has to do with your baseless belief in a Zealot Jesus. Why are you deflecting from that hmmmm?</quote> You're the one who started talking about all these christians taking up his mantle. Not me. And the claim isn't baseless. Jesus was born in a Zealot region. What you're saying is tantamount to some nonsense like Muhammad wasn't an Arab.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
teepan95 05/01/17 2:19:32 PM #188:	I mean Jesus didn't die on the cross He merely passed out/went unconscious So it's not a resurrection per se --- http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1060-homework-helpers - come drop by! Schnittkraftmeister <cite>teepan95 posted [p:878267959] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>I mean Jesus didn't die on the cross He merely passed out/went unconscious So it's not a resurrection per se</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 2:22:27 PM #189:	Zealot is not an ethnic group so it is not comparable at all to saying Muhammad wasn't an Arab, which is obviously false. It was a specific political group which had goals which were the opposite of the goals Jesus had in the Gospels. Not everyone nor even most people at that time and place were Zealots. Jesus' first folowers don't have any Zealot tendencies. Their successors weren't revolutionaries. Their writings and the purported sayings of Jesus tend to be neutral to Roman rule, or even deferential to it. We have no evidence of a Christian rebellion against Rome, yet multiple sources about several Jewish revolts against Rome. Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878268136] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Zealot is not an ethnic group so it is not comparable at all to saying Muhammad wasn't an Arab, which is obviously false. It was a specific political group which had goals which were the opposite of the goals Jesus had in the Gospels. Not everyone nor even most people at that time and place were Zealots. Jesus' first folowers don't have any Zealot tendencies. Their successors weren't revolutionaries. Their writings and the purported sayings of Jesus tend to be neutral to Roman rule, or even deferential to it. We have no evidence of a Christian rebellion against Rome, yet multiple sources about several Jewish revolts against Rome. Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 2:26:17 PM #190:	Saloonist posted... Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please. He was crucified. That's the evidence. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878268324] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please.</quote> He was crucified. That's the evidence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 2:29:06 PM #191:	ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please. He was crucified. That's the evidence. And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...? --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878268492] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please.</quote> He was crucified. That's the evidence.</quote> And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 2:37:06 PM #192:	You people are so biased against Christianity it's laughable. You'll jump through every hoop you see in order to justify every ahistorical claim which flatly contradict the historical sources to try to discredit them. And then you accuse the Christian sources of bias when they are consistent with how history actually played out. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878268915] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>You people are so biased against Christianity it's laughable. You'll jump through every hoop you see in order to justify every ahistorical claim which flatly contradict the historical sources to try to discredit them. And then you accuse the Christian sources of bias when they are consistent with how history actually played out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 2:38:51 PM #193:	Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please. He was crucified. That's the evidence. And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...? Because a peaceful rabbi would not have been crucified. As I already said, crucifixion was an extremely rare punishment. It wasn't like the romans would hold daily crucifying ceremonies or anything. While they executed a bunch of people for various reasons, they did so usually through other means. Crucifying only happened in rare cases of an extremely heinous criminal or enemy of the state. So if he was crucified, then you admit that he was an enemy of the state or rebel leader. If you don't admit that, then you admit that Pilate and the romans bent the rules regarding who gets crucified, and when you go down that route, you now have a supporting logical argument that the romans can and do break rules which means all of Kreeft's arguments that "romans wouldn't do _____" are now refuted all at once simultaneously, and so you have arrived at the answer. If Romans are willing to break one rule, they're willing to break others. If they didn't break any rules, then the only logical path that follows is that Jesus was a violent rebel who had his history revised by his closest friends after his death. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878269020] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please.</quote> He was crucified. That's the evidence.</quote> And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...?</quote> Because a peaceful rabbi would not have been crucified. As I already said, crucifixion was an extremely rare punishment. It wasn't like the romans would hold daily crucifying ceremonies or anything. While they executed a bunch of people for various reasons, they did so usually through other means. Crucifying only happened in rare cases of an extremely heinous criminal or enemy of the state. So if he was crucified, then you admit that he was an enemy of the state or rebel leader. If you don't admit that, then you admit that Pilate and the romans bent the rules regarding who gets crucified, and when you go down that route, you now have a supporting logical argument that the romans can and do break rules which means all of Kreeft's arguments that "romans wouldn't do _____" are now refuted all at once simultaneously, and so you have arrived at the answer. If Romans are willing to break one rule, they're willing to break others. If they didn't break any rules, then the only logical path that follows is that Jesus was a violent rebel who had his history revised by his closest friends after his death.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 2:40:29 PM #194:	Even if I accepted everything you said (which frankly is rank nonsense) you still have absolutely 0 support for the notion that Jesus was a Zealot. Justify the claim that Jesus was a Zealot. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878269111] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Even if I accepted everything you said (which frankly is rank nonsense) you still have absolutely 0 support for the notion that Jesus was a Zealot. Justify the claim that Jesus was a Zealot.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Storm101 05/01/17 2:41:14 PM #195:	I mean you're the one that thought it was a good idea to discuss this on CE of all places instead of just researching secular articles on your own (like the ones I linked earlier in this thread). None of us here are experts on it. If you must debate, the religion board would be better for that. <cite>Storm101 posted [p:878269152] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>I mean you're the one that thought it was a good idea to discuss this on CE of all places instead of just researching secular articles on your own (like the ones I linked earlier in this thread). None of us here are experts on it. If you must debate, the religion board would be better for that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 2:42:48 PM #196:	Saloonist posted... Even if I accepted everything you said (which frankly is rank nonsense) you still have absolutely 0 support for the notion that Jesus was a Zealot. Justify the claim that Jesus was a Zealot. I already explained if you accept everything I claim but reject that Jesus was a Zealot then you accept that Romans broke rules which refutes Kreeft's arguments. Which is the answer to your original question, is it not? --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878269254] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Even if I accepted everything you said (which frankly is rank nonsense) you still have absolutely 0 support for the notion that Jesus was a Zealot. Justify the claim that Jesus was a Zealot.</quote> I already explained if you accept everything I claim but reject that Jesus was a Zealot then you accept that Romans broke rules which refutes Kreeft's arguments. Which is the answer to your original question, is it not?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 05/01/17 2:49:47 PM #197:	teepan95 posted... I mean Jesus didn't die on the cross He merely passed out/went unconscious So it's not a resurrection per se how did exit the tomb guarded by roman centurions and sealed with a heavy rock? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:878269637] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>teepan95 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean Jesus didn't die on the cross He merely passed out/went unconscious So it's not a resurrection per se</quote> how did exit the tomb guarded by roman centurions and sealed with a heavy rock?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ManLink4321 05/01/17 2:51:52 PM #198:	teepan95 is not to be taken seriously. --- The Hero of Hyrule. <cite>ManLink4321 posted [p:878269759] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>teepan95 is not to be taken seriously.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4 05/01/17 2:53:29 PM #199:	darkphoenix181 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute The court lost the right to declare executions right about the time of Jesus. You can call the coincidence or convenience, but how interesting. And it might be that they gained it back shortly after Jesus seeing how they are found stoning Stephen to death only a year or so later. Or it could be that as said here they still had the right to stone people for blasphemy as such was their law but needed approval via the Roman prefect. Infact the very verse you quote shows that Pilate would have had no issue in this matter seeing how he said to them, "You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” but they were intent on crucifixion likely because it was a much worse way to die than stoning. It might also be that they could not kill a person on passover, not sure about this however. On the sabbath I believe they couldn't since they couldn't work. Passover is a little bit special. So all it would take to make the prophecy not come true would have been for them to decide to kill him when it was not passover. They could have waited a few more days and Pilate said "go ahead" and then stoned him(few more because of sabbath interfering) . But this didn't happen, how interesting. Remember I am not arguing he wasn't crucified or there wasn't an attempt to crucify him with that leading to his death. Only that if he survived it could have been done with some collusion and it would not be that out of the ordinary considering it's politics. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:878269845] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Pilate was only brought into the equation because of the special circumstances surrounding Jesus</quote> “If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you. You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” Pilate told them. “We are not permitted to execute anyone,” the Jews replied. John 18:30-31</quote> https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute The court lost the right to declare executions right about the time of Jesus. You can call the coincidence or convenience, but how interesting. And it might be that they gained it back shortly after Jesus seeing how they are found stoning Stephen to death only a year or so later. Or it could be that as said here they still had the right to stone people for blasphemy as such was their law but needed approval via the Roman prefect. Infact the very verse you quote shows that Pilate would have had no issue in this matter seeing how he said to them, "You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,” but they were intent on crucifixion likely because it was a much worse way to die than stoning. It might also be that they could not kill a person on passover, not sure about this however. On the sabbath I believe they couldn't since they couldn't work. Passover is a little bit special. So all it would take to make the prophecy not come true would have been for them to decide to kill him when it was not passover. They could have waited a few more days and Pilate said "go ahead" and then stoned him(few more because of sabbath interfering) . But this didn't happen, how interesting.</quote> Remember I am not arguing he wasn't crucified or there wasn't an attempt to crucify him with that leading to his death. Only that if he survived it could have been done with some collusion and it would not be that out of the ordinary considering it's politics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#200	Post #200 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus