Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Many scholars have pondered the question of how the leader of a rather obscure jewish sect could be transformed into the figurehead of a world-wide religion.

For many centuries, Christians were put to death by romans for their beliefs. Yet, somehow, all of Rome eventually became Christian.

Nietzsche hated Christian "morality" but had a healthy respect for Jesus himself. He said, among other things: There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross.

For whatever reasons, the underlying messages of Jesus have held great appeal, and the power to overcome radically opposed "ideologies." That is "real" and (virtually) tangible.

You're an utter loon. You making a fool of yourself. That's no skin off my nose, though.

Is that you way of saying I am not agreeing with you, Argome?

Maybe some day you would be kind enough to teach me how to be a masterdebator like you, eh? I would especially like to learn how to use such powerful, irrefutable and conclusive rhetoric devices as:

don't talk to me again, you piece of ****
they were racist idiots--like you.
Racist creep.
I'm happy to call you an obsessive, ignorant and ranting idiot at any time.
This is typical of your idiocy
You seem to truly lack reasoning skills.
You really suck at debate
I didn't employ a straw man fallacy, dipshit
you flannel-mouthed bullshit artist
I think your Mr. Hughes is just as big a bullshit artist as you
You're an utter loon.

BRILLIANTLY INSIGHTFUL!
UTTERLY DEVASTATING!
CONCLUSIVELY CONVINCING!!

Sho nuff. So much so, that one could never doubt that this claim is true, eh?:

None of which alters that you have no argument, and that all of this started because you referred to the Japanese with a disgusting racist term, which you then defended by saying it was in use at the time. You still haven't answered if you consider terms like chink and n*gger acceptable, given that they were in use at the time. I've asked you more than once.

I haven't claimed to be a "master debater," i've just pointed out your lack of reasoning skills and rhetorical skills. I've offered reasons for the positions i've taken, you've just offered ipse dixit claims by obscure historians who aren't offering the sources of their evidence.

Yes, i still consider your a racist . . . and as the evidence rolls in, an intellectually inept racist.

Again, you're being disingenuous. I guess that's normal for you

.

Reading is fundamental. I didn't "defend" anything on that basis. I did reveal my personal view about it: "I personally have never seen the shortened "jap" for "Japanese" to be inherently derogatory. No more than I would see "dave" for "david" or Ted for Theodore."



Yeah, I've seen this revisionist claim made by you before, such as when you said:



You pretend that you were asking an honest question, in order to get enough facts to make a determination. Yeah, right, eh? Your question was merely your rhetorical way of repeating, yet again, you self-righteous "racist" allegation. You had already made such outright, unconditional assertions as:

1. "...you idiot. People in 1941 called the Japanese "Japs" because they were racist idiots--like you"
2. Immediately after your alleged "question" you wrote this sentence: "Racist creep."

I don't ever respond to such lame and unsubstantiated characterizations, and I don't expect that I ever will. They don't merit a response.

Your last sentence of this very post repeats your, to you, indisputable personal conclusion: "Yes, i still consider your a racist . . . and as the evidence rolls in, an intellectually inept racist."

Don't pretend you want an answer to some "question" to which you have already announced the answer, as divined by your omniscient mind.

Just rave on.

What is the answer to the topic question, Argome?

I will say this much. Assuming (which I don't) that "jap" was/is a derogatory term, I would have no problem ascribing any number of "derogatory terms" to the Japanese Regime that was committing human atrocities all over China, and elsewhere, at the time.

The innocuous term "jap" would not even begin to express the amount of contempt that deserves. Get off your high moral horse.

Avoidance and deflection, same old tricks uh Frank?

I'm waiting on Cicerone Imposter to view this thread. He will tell you how innocuous is the term Jap. He was in one of the American camps for Japanese Americans during the war.

Well, Ed that was a sorry chapter in our history. And there is no question that, back during the war, virtually no American could talk about "japs" without a concomitant feeling of intense animosity.

It is that fact (that the U.S. and Japan were former enemies at war) that leads some to dislike the term "jap," I suspect. Those things can be hard to get over, too. For decades, the word "yankee" evoked strong sentiments in the south and the words "rebel," "confederate, "or even "southerner" had the same effect in the north. To some extent, it's still true.

Even so, I would never consider any of those terms to be inherently derogatory, nor would I advocate eliminating them from the language. To me, it's never the words, per se, that are offensive (although the intentions behind them can be).

And I might add that those feelings would not have changed one bit if the word "Japanese" was used instead. Or any other word that served to identify that country and/or its inhabitants.

Some here might find this video interesting/educational.



Then again, maybe not.

My take on events goes a little like this.

There was a jewish man who was very zealous. Well educated in the Torah and annoyed that the Romans were his pagan oppressors. But probably felt that he could use this oppression to bolster other jews and maybe even some romans to become devout in the jewish faith. Since he believed in god he was fearless in the most part believing god was on his side.

This can be supported by things like when he was on the cross he was asking god why god had forsaken him.

You wouldn't ask that question if you were under the notion that you were saving all of mankind for your sacrifice. However; you would ask that question if you believed god had your support yet men were about to destroy a person with god's support. It didn't make any sense to him.

He became a martyr and as time went on characteristics were attributed to him that just weren't true as an attempt to use him as a magnet to gain more followers. However; this backfired, instead of invigorating judaism it broke off and became it's own thing. Probably because some followers of jesus realized that the jewish god failed to save him therefore jesus must have been superior to that of the jewish god.

Thus christianity was born yet it still did not have firm traction in the pegan society. So followers kept exaggerating jesus's accomplishments and lifting him higher on the divine scale. The romans themselves were extremely superstitious so it was easy to convert them with these stories that jesus was divine. As it gained traction it got the attention of roman leaders as time went on.

Constantine plays a huge role in the development of christianity however; he felt that the christian god was a god of war. As the story goes he had a dream believing the jewish god was blessing him and his soldiers. He was probably facing a potential invading army and was going crazy trying to find a solution. He believed that the christian god was on his side so when he won this battle being superstitious as he was believed it was due to the power of the christian god that made it happen.

Now a bit about comparing early christianity to that of the roman gods of polytheism. The romans spent a lot of time trying to appeal to their gods. They would have to constantly visit many different temples daily to make sure the gods wouldn't get jealous of one another. They would purchase offerings and all of this takes up a lot of time and money. However; christianity was easier because it required no visits to the temple nor did you need to purchase any offerings. It was the perfect lazy mans religion and the perfect fit for a lazy and superstitious ruler.

He helped promote christianity after that and probably had a hand in creating more exaggerations about jesus and the power of the christian faith. So as time went on the miracles that jesus were to have performed were invented to elevate him to a divine position. They wanted to make him less of a mortal man and to do this he had to accomplish things that no one else could do.

The gospels were written as an attempt to empower the jesus figurehead and develop more power and influence for these new christians who wanted to over come their roman oppressors. It was a religious war and so there was a lot of desperation to give as much validity as possible to this new faith. So they felt justified in embellishing jesus's actual accomplishments.

Similar to today when you see apologists and other ministers out right lying about things. They feel justified in their lies because they feel it is for a good cause. If they lie and it brings people over to christianity then so be it. The fact that this happens now only suggests that it was probably even more common back then.

No, i asked the question to find out if you apply the same standard to those offensive and racist terms as you do to the use of "Jap." I see i can't get a straight answer out of you on this. I consider you a racist because you used the word "Jap" and then tried to justify it because it was used seventy years ago. That hasn't changed. At this point, my assessment of your honesty and your intelligent hasn't changed, either. You show no ability to reason, and it's hilarious to see you claim you don't ever respond, blah, blah, blah . . . in the middle of a response to the question. You obviously don't know the meaning of the term revisionist, either.

I've never claimed to be omniscient. Your ignorance, your arrogance and your racist attitude toward the Japanese are pasted all over this thread. No omniscience is needed.

Rave on.

Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

What a maroon . . .

Wow... Lots of hogwash in there, motivated as usual by prejudice. E.g. Constantine was not lazy at all. In fact he was arguably the smartest and most effective Roman emperor ever, tirelessly working to consolidate the empire. And he did not alter the Gospels, written centuries before him. I could go on.

So, in your opinion...asking the answer to the actual topic of the thread is avoidance and deflection...huh?

Even you should be able to see the absurdity of your position, Argome.