Which Religion is the One True Religion?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But, Krumpie, suppose all the myths and stories were useful. Or, at least, more useful than any other collection of myths and stories. And there were plenty of those to choose from. Not having any myths and stories at all seems never to have entered anybody's head. Not anybody who left any record of themselves anyway.

Is that not good enough information for you consider?

Coming from a single source without any supporting sources? No. I mean it seems rather strange that a guy who suppose to have done so many crazy miracles, no one else wrote about him? Surely the word would have gotten around but oddly not a single scribe recorded anything. One source is a red flag for made up bullshit.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

But not everything Jesus has suppose to have said is very wise at all. Like him commenting on disowning your own family members if they are not followers.

I have read that some American companies avoid employing people who have what they consider to be too close family ties. Possibly in The Organisation Man but I'm not sure.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Coming from a single source without any supporting sources? No. I mean it seems rather strange that a guy who suppose to have done so many crazy miracles, no one else wrote about him? Surely the word would have gotten around but oddly not a single scribe recorded anything. One source is a red flag for made up bullshit.

I consider that to be an evasion of the question I posed.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But, Krumpie, suppose all the myths and stories were useful. Or, at least, more useful than any other collection of myths and stories. And there were plenty of those to choose from. Not having any myths and stories at all seems never to have entered anybody's head. Not anybody who left any record of themselves anyway.

Is that not good enough information for you consider?

Krumple wrote:

Coming from a single source without any supporting sources? No.I mean it seems rather strange that a guy who suppose to have done so many crazy miracles, no one else wrote about him? Surely the word would have gotten around but oddly not a single scribe recorded anything. One source is a red flag for made up bullshit.

spendius wrote:

I consider that to be an evasion of the question I posed.

How exactly is answering with a "No" an evasion to the question?

0 Replies

Jesus was TOO BIG to have been a myth, he was seen by thousands of eyewitnesses!
I never saw Elvis but I'm quite prepared to believe eyewitness accounts of people who saw him.. Smile

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I consider that to be an evasion of the question I posed.

What else did you expect? Don't expect reasoned comment from that poster.

As for there being just one source, the Gospels are not a single source, especially when you include the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea scrolls. There's also a tradition oral tales about Jesus in the Middle East, most of which are told by Moslems who regard Jesus as a prophet and martyr. Then there's Tacitus.

Quote:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Btw, I'm quite happy to entertain the notion that Jesus didn't exist, that he's just a myth used to illustrate certain theological arguments, but any debate must be informed. Krumple may be quite a lot of things, but informed is not one of them. Her response to Fresco on the perception of colour thread was quite telling. On that subject he definitely knows what he's talking about, and she's just an uninformed blowhard.

0 Replies

The Tacitus article you cite from Wikipedia was edited on April 5 of this year It is one of many articles at Wikipedia which have been vandalized by christians beginning early in 2013. There are many clues in the interpolation that it was a false passage--it mentions oa procurator, and in the first century, the office of procurator, as a sub-governor, did not exist. Tacitus was a governor of the province of Asia at the time he wrote, and would have known that. At the time of the fire at Rome (one of many which occurred in that decade), even christians did not call themselves christians, and this is something else the Tacitus would have known. Most telling, however, is the evidence of Seutonius, who was born a few years after that fire, and who had the eyewitness testimony of many people living when the fire occurred. Not only does he not report persecutions carried out by Nero, he comments favorably on Nero's response to the disaster, and the pains he took to succor the population. Seutonius does not otherwise have anything good to say about Nero. Something else which is telling is that such a passage is not mentioned by Eusebius, the so-called father of church history, and the man who was probably responsible for the Josephus interpolation. You can bet that if such a passage had been available, Eusebius would have used it.

All of the articles at Wikipedia which deal with this subject have been vandalized. When they are corrected, the vandals come back and do it again--hence, the editing of that article just four days ago. Look at the bottom of the page: This page was last modified on 5 April 2014 at 15:08.

0 Replies

An excellent article on the Tacitus interpolation.

This is the page on alleged historical sources for "Jesus" at Infidels-dot-org.

This is the section on the Tacitus passage:

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

There are many other such sources online. Wikipedia has ceased to be a reliable source for early church history, the historicity of Jesus and christology.

0 Replies

Quote:

Setanta said: It is one of many articles at Wikipedia which have been vandalized by christians beginning early in 2013.

It was probably a false flag thing done by atheists, commies and nonchristians to try to pin it on christians, I'm suprised you fell for it.. Smile

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus was TOO BIG to have been a myth, he was seen by thousands of eyewitnesses!
I never saw Elvis but I'm quite prepared to believe eyewitness accounts of people who saw him..

O.K. However, is there a reason He never proselytized to the Gentiles? Given that Jerusalem was all Hebrews (aka, Jews), and Romans, why not talk to the Romans? At least, "Hello"? In other words, if one believes that Jesus is one part of the Trinity of God, then what does Jesus' non-involvement with Gentiles tell us about God's attitude towards pagans? Now remember, upon Constatine's allowing pagans to adopt Christianity, the newly converted pagans did believe that this one God was concerned about their lives. Yet, when He was here, as Jesus, he snubbed pagans (aka, Gentiles)? This really sounds odd, in that the Gentiles had to rely on the efforts of Saul (aka, St. Paul) to be brought into the faith.

Based on Jesus' reticence to proselytize to anyone that was not Jewish, one might conclude that The Son of God wanted a closed club? Or, at least only Gentiles of the highest class would get honorary membership?

I believe the above are all logical questions. And, I am not claiming to have an answer.

1 Reply

http://www.theonion.com/articles/biologists-confirm-god-evolved-from-chimpanzee-dei,35755/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

0 Replies

Hehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

Foofie said: Based on Jesus' reticence to proselytize to anyone that was not Jewish, one might conclude that The Son of God wanted a closed club?

I don't think there were any "Jews Only" notices at his gigs.. Smile

Israel was a good starting point because his coming was foretold in their ancient scriptures and they were reasonably civilised.
I mean, if God had put him on earth in ancient America, the Apaches would have scalped him, and if he's been put in the Congo he'd have ended up in their cookpot.
He had no beef with foreigners, he even cured a Roman centurion's servant.
And Paul was a Roman citizen.
So although Jesus began in Israel, his sights were set on the whole world-
"I didn’t come to judge the world but to save it" (John 12:47)
And later he told his mates-
"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (Mark 16:15)

1 Reply

In a related note

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/conservativechristian_zpsb5fb3f83.jpg

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

. . . However, is there a reason He never proselytized to the Gentiles? Given that Jerusalem was all Hebrews (aka, Jews), and Romans, why not talk to the Romans? At least, "Hello"?

Jesus' initial involvement was with the nation of Israel because his keeping of the Jewish law was part of necessary prophecy. As Paul explained:

Quote:

Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor (Galatians 3: 24,25)

Foofie wrote:

. . . In other words, if one believes that Jesus is one part of the Trinity of God,

BZZT! No such thing as a trinity. And its insertion here is superfluous anyway.

Foofie wrote:

. . . then what does Jesus' non-involvement with Gentiles tell us about God's attitude towards pagans?

Remember that Jesus did speak at length with a Samaritan woman.
Also, God's promise to Abraham included all nations.

Quote:

And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’” (Genesis 22:18)

Peter reiterated this in Acts 10:35:

Quote:

. . .in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. . .

So, what was it you were asking?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Foofie said: Based on Jesus' reticence to proselytize to anyone that was not Jewish, one might conclude that The Son of God wanted a closed club?

I don't think there were any "Jews Only" notices at his gigs..
Israel was a good starting point because his coming was foretold in their ancient scriptures and they were reasonably civilised.
I mean, if God had put him on earth in ancient America, the Apaches would have scalped him, and if he's been put in the Congo he'd have ended up in their cookpot.
He had no beef with foreigners, he even cured a Roman centurion's servant.
And Paul was a Roman citizen.
So although Jesus began in Israel, his sights were set on the whole world-
"I didn’t come to judge the world but to save it" (John 12:47)
And later he told his mates-
"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (Mark 16:15)

O.K. So, he didn't come to preach to the Native Americans, nor the Africans; however, coming to Jerusalem still had the problem that the Romans didn't like his anti-Roman shtick. He wound up crucified.

Without Romans present, I cannot believe He would have been on trial, since the old joke is that in a room full of three Jews there are five opinions on a topic. Jews have a way of tolerating opinions, at least that's my opinion. Gentiles, not so much. Again in my opinion.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Foofie wrote:
. . . In other words, if one believes that Jesus is one part of the Trinity of God,
BZZT! No such thing as a trinity. And its insertion here is superfluous anyway.
Foofie wrote:
. . . then what does Jesus' non-involvement with Gentiles tell us about God's attitude towards pagans?
Remember that Jesus did speak at length with a Samaritan woman.

My point being that Jesus, being God himself, did not preach at length to the Gentiles, since his remaining in Jerusalem and only proselytizing to the Jews predominantly, would make him appear to be oriented towards Jews. What was written years later could easily have been written with the intent to make sense out of St. Paul's proselytizing to the Gentiles.

I'm sort of implying that Jews would make good Christians, as Jesus would have wanted. Gentiles could just have "Honorary Christian" stamped on any Baptismal Certificates. As Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everyone wants to get into the act."

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

My point being that Jesus, being God himself, did not preach at length to the Gentiles, since his remaining in Jerusalem and only proselytizing to the Jews predominantly, would make him appear to be oriented towards Jews. What was written years later could easily have been written with the intent to make sense out of St. Paul's proselytizing to the Gentiles.

I'm sort of implying that Jews would make good Christians, as Jesus would have wanted. Gentiles could just have "Honorary Christian" stamped on any Baptismal Certificates. As Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everyone wants to get into the act."

Jesus is not God.
It was necessary for Jesus to establish his identity with those who had been given the law. That is why the Jews were set apart as a special people. It is quite obvious that they were no more or less deserving.
This is the reason for Daniel's prophecy in chapter 9, vs. 27: "And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week" (ie 7 years). The covenant, once ended, allowed for the conversion of gentiles, starting with Cornelius.

1 Reply

Truth is, the Jews of the covenant broke it all the time, calling on Yahweh as the god of war but worshipping the old gods for fertility etc.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

Making Jesus a standout.

1 Reply

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know