Just checking, there aren't people who take the Bible literally are there?
Options
Comments
-
Lol @ Ether_I_Am
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »That doesn't affect Jesus. If he was an average man who was indeed a con artist he knew he wouldn't become ? or be the hype man or none of that so still what would have been Jesus' reasoning for being crucified? Unless he faked his crucifixion and in return was collecting money on his legacy behind the scenes there was no payoff.
It worked for the Mormons. The church is bigger then ever since they killed Joseph Smith. I read parts of the gospel of Judas and there were examples elsewhere that suggested Jesus set the whole thing up in order to gain infamy or for mans sins (your choice). Some people are that dedicated to their cause. Or maybe some guys that never new Jesus wrote about him decades (over a century) after his death even though there are no records of his deeds nor death from around that time (Romans kept extensive records).
There is also the factor that all second hand evidence was recorded in observance of others who made claims decades (over a century) after the death of Jesus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html -
FuriousOne wrote: »It worked for the Mormons. The church is bigger then ever since they killed Joseph Smith. I read parts of the gospel of Judas and there were examples elsewhere that suggested Jesus set the whole thing up in order to gain infamy or for mans sins (your choice). Some people are that dedicated to their cause. Or maybe some guys that never new Jesus wrote about him decades (over a century) after his death even though there are no records of his deeds nor death from around that time (Romans kept extensive records).
There is also the factor that all second hand evidence was recorded in observance of others who made claims decades (over a century) after the death of Jesus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
Yea but doesn't have nothing to do with Jesus being a con man. Joseph Smith had he not had anything to do with the Mormon church and was just a ? claiming to be a prophet then it would be similar. Jesus did not live to see the Church take off and reap the benefits of it. Joseph Smith did. Two completely different cases. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Yea but doesn't have nothing to do with Jesus being a con man. Joseph Smith had he not had anything to do with the Mormon church and was just a ? claiming to be a prophet then it would be similar. Jesus did not live to see the Church take off and reap the benefits of it. Joseph Smith did. Two completely different cases.
True, but you ignore the fact that the invention of Jesus is the con.
Looking at the story of Jesus, you can see that he performed many things that a can man would claim. Con man in modern day churches claim to doing amazing things all the time. If you ask why Jesus would do such a thing, you would have to admit that he had people following his every word and he was attempting to influence policy in the region. Some people just like to have others around them consuming their every word. The payoff is in the thought that people think that you're the man.
People create larger then life images of themselves in order to make friends all the time in order to gain accolades (which make you feel good). He also made a claim to be the Messiah which is a con that has been perpetrated by Jewish rabbi's threw out history. But then the death in the end does seem anti climatic but one can convince themselves of their own divinity if they know that they will not die (and will rise in 3 days). So that's not exactly a lack of payoff.
What's similar about Jesus and Joseph Smith (If Jesus was just a man) is that Jesus many not have expected to be killed until that day came. The power of the Mormon church wasn't so influential until well after Josephs death. Both had followers. -
FuriousOne wrote: »True, but you ignore the fact that the invention of Jesus is the con.
Looking at the story of Jesus, you can see that he performed many things that a can man would claim. Con man in modern day churches claim to doing amazing things all the time. If you ask why Jesus would do such a thing, you would have to admit that he had people following his every word and he was attempting to influence policy in the region. Some people just like to have others around them consuming their every word. The payoff is in the thought that people think that you're the man.
People create larger then life images of themselves in order to make friends all the time in order to gain accolades (which make you feel good). He also made a claim to be the Messiah which is a con that has been perpetrated by Jewish rabbi's threw out history. But then the death in the end does seem anti climatic but one can convince themselves of their own divinity if they know that they will not die (and will rise in 3 days). So that's not exactly a lack of payoff.
What's similar about Jesus and Joseph Smith (If Jesus was just a man) is that Jesus many not have expected to be killed until that day came. The power of the Mormon church wasn't so influential until well after Josephs death. Both had followers.
Okay but we were talking about Jesus himself being a con-man, which if he existed it's obvious he doesn't fall into that category. Christian religion is the con-man using Jesus as their con. That doesn't make Yeshua himself a con-man. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Okay but we were talking about Jesus himself being a con-man, which if he existed it's obvious he doesn't fall into that category. Christian religion is the con-man using Jesus as their con. That doesn't make Yeshua himself a con-man.
Did you read the parts i wrote about Jesus himself having the attributes of a conman? I know there were typos but i'm high and multitasking. Still, I mentioned enough about Jesus himself being a conman along side the greater con of Jesus being a deity.People create larger then life images of themselves in order to make friends all the time in order to gain accoladesIf you ask why Jesus would do such a thing, you would have to admit that he had people following his every word and he was attempting to influence policy in the region. Some people just like to have others around them consuming their every word. The payoff is in the thought that people think that you're the man. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Did you read the parts i wrote about Jesus himself having the attributes of a conman? I know there were typos but i'm high and multitasking. Still, I mentioned enough about Jesus himself being a conman along side the greater con of Jesus being a deity.
Yea I did, but I don't believe he ever claimed to be divine or anything like that. Great people always end up having folklore created around them to help enhance their image. I don't believe he would of been anything more than a man trying to make a change and stood up against the Romans. So no, I don't see any conman traits coming from Jesus. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Yea I did, but I don't believe he ever claimed to be divine or anything like that. Great people always end up having folklore created around them to help enhance their image. I don't believe he would of been anything more than a man trying to make a change and stood up against the Romans. So no, I don't see any conman traits coming from Jesus.
I feel you. I've had the same thoughts. That was the mission of that time for many Jews. I also see it as a metaphor to fight against the Jewish money handlers that were poisoning the religion and culture. But can you say without a doubt that Jesus if he ever lived did not profess such things as divinity or being a Messiah or the Son of ? . or ? .
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_claim.html
What evidence do you have outside of the bible that Jesus did not claim to do wonders and be divine? The claim to be a Messiah within Jewish culture is not rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants#Jewish_messiah_claimants -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »That doesn't affect Jesus. If he was an average man who was indeed a con artist he knew he wouldn't become ? or be the hype man or none of that so still what would have been Jesus' reasoning for being crucified? Unless he faked his crucifixion and in return was collecting money on his legacy behind the scenes there was no payoff.
maybe he was nutz and wanted to suicide himself.jim jones and heavens gate didnt have much of a payoff either. -
alissowack wrote: »Maybe I need to work on how I word stuff...I don't know. But I was not suggesting that the miracles wouldn't be amazing. I'm saying that if that is all that I'm looking for in Jesus is the miracles, then it's possible that I am only interested in what I can gain from it...not whether these miracles serve a different purpose.
then why do you believe such absurd notions then?bet its for some type of gain -
FuriousOne wrote: »I feel you. I've had the same thoughts. That was the mission of that time for many Jews. I also see it as a metaphor to fight against the Jewish money handlers that were poisoning the religion and culture. But can you say without a doubt that Jesus if he ever lived did not profess such things as divinity or being a Messiah or the Son of ? . or ? .
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_claim.html
What evidence do you have outside of the bible that Jesus did not claim to do wonders and be divine? The claim to be a Messiah within Jewish culture is not rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants#Jewish_messiah_claimants
Well, in secular writings they never claimed that he claimed such, only in the bible and other christian writings does Jesus "claim" to be divine. And if he did claim to be a messiah, he would have been killed sooner because he would have had to prove he was. I've seen many great people or those who truly inspire end up having extra things added to them after death. Why could this be no different? Just looking at cases of other people who are labeled with an extraordinary tag after death I can make the assumption that if he was real this is the most probable case. I also find it hard to believe in that period a man claiming to be a ? or the Son of ? would live to see 33 years before being dealt with. All the divine things about Jesus come from the bible, which isn't a reliable source and is all second or third hand stories. I can say that Furiousone said that he's ? and write it down does that mean it was your words?
So imo you either believe he did miracles to back his claim and people believed him, he was average, or didn't exist. -
thedesolateone wrote: »then why do you believe such absurd notions then?bet its for some type of gain
I must need to go back to grammar school or something. Maybe my if/then statements do not capture the points I try to make. My post was to suggest that I must be looking to gain something if all I am interested in is the miracles. -
alissowack wrote: »I must need to go back to grammar school or something. Maybe my if/then statements do not capture the points I try to make. My post was to suggest that I must be looking to gain something if all I am interested in is the miracles.
so what is so interesting to you then about jesus?do you considr jesus the greatest person to ever live and do you see him as perfect -
thedesolateone wrote: »so what is so interesting to you then about jesus?do you considr jesus the greatest person to ever live and do you see him as perfect
Does it matter how "interesting" I make Jesus out to be? Jesus is...whom the Bible says he is and anything I may agree upon or even have doubts about wouldn't change things...especially if Jesus exists. -
thedesolateone wrote: »they payoff is umm according to your religion....BECOMING ? OR SITTING AT THE RIGHTHAND OR WHATEVER.
Exactly ! His reward came in heaven. We are offered the same deal. -
John Prewett wrote: »
Exactly ! His reward came in heaven. We are offered the same deal.
what is the deal?
well my life isnt a bargain but hey i hope your lucky. -
alissowack wrote: »Does it matter how "interesting" I make Jesus out to be? Jesus is...whom the Bible says he is and anything I may agree upon or even have doubts about wouldn't change things...especially if Jesus exists.
what does it matter what a book says.i dont base my life on stephen king novels.but to each his own -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well, in secular writings they never claimed that he claimed such, only in the bible and other christian writings does Jesus "claim" to be divine. And if he did claim to be a messiah, he would have been killed sooner because he would have had to prove he was. I've seen many great people or those who truly inspire end up having extra things added to them after death. Why could this be no different? Just looking at cases of other people who are labeled with an extraordinary tag after death I can make the assumption that if he was real this is the most probable case. I also find it hard to believe in that period a man claiming to be a ? or the Son of ? would live to see 33 years before being dealt with. All the divine things about Jesus come from the bible, which isn't a reliable source and is all second or third hand stories. I can say that Furiousone said that he's ? and write it down does that mean it was your words?
So imo you either believe he did miracles to back his claim and people believed him, he was average, or didn't exist.
So here's the ultimate question. Who wrote these secular writings and how can the contest a book that bought him into the world even if that book is suspect. Were these writings written before are after the Bible. Were the written during the time of Jesus? Please provide links as i have. Your also looking at the payoff as being a financial one. Jim Jones killed himself but he expected the payoff the occur after death.
It doesn't matter whether divinity is there or not, this does not change the fact that he was pulling a con (even though in his mind it wasn't). If you have proof that Jesus was ever a man then you will have to present facts outside of the bible. All of those supposed facts are second hand observations of ramblings of Christians. There is also the fact that Jesus was a common name as was Marry and Joseph.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207398/
There is yet another factor as I linked to in the past that the original manuscripts do not exist and know one knows who wrote them nor if they weren't embellished (it's evident with the myriad of translations that they were). So what other evidence is there? I'm not one to speculate about something that holds no evidence to have ever existed nor practiced normal or divine things. -
thedesolateone wrote: »......... what is the deal? .......................
But without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to ? must believe that He is,
and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6
["seek and you will find"] -
FuriousOne wrote: »So here's the ultimate question. Who wrote these secular writings and how can the contest a book that bought him into the world even if that book is suspect. Were these writings written before are after the Bible.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus before it's believed that any biblical scripture was written. Josephus wrote about him after only the Gospel of Mark. Both lived during the time that Jesus would have lived however, Tacitus was a historian for the Romans during the time Jesus was crucified.Were the written during the time of Jesus?
Not while he was living no but most writings of people come post death during that time.Please provide links as i have. Your also looking at the payoff as being a financial one. Jim Jones killed himself but he expected the payoff the occur after death.
Okay so Jesus believed in a ? and really believed he was his son and got himself killed for it so he could go to heaven, that's still not a con man it means he was crazy. I wouldn't consider Jim Jones or Charles Manson con men yet they both had followers willing to die for them.
It sounds more reasonable to me that he stood against the Romans and was crucified for it and the legend began because he was the "messiah" they hoped for. What links btw? I never said I had links I said based on the period and happenings I've come to the "assumption" that him being a regular man that tried leading a revolt was the most probable case.It doesn't matter whether divinity is there or not, this does not change the fact that he was pulling a con (even though in his mind it wasn't).
Again your opinion. I can care less whether he conned people or not. Neither of us have solidified proof so it doesn't matter. You must think he did being your trying to fire up an argument and I don't, leave it at that it is what it is.If you have proof that Jesus was ever a man then you will have to present facts outside of the bible.
Which I think the roman historian at the time of his crucifixion does.All of those supposed facts are second hand observations of ramblings of Christians. There is also the fact that Jesus was a common name as was Marry and Joseph.
1. Wrong. Tacitus, Josephs, and Lucian were not Christian. Lucian wrote the opposite of what Christians preached and wasn't Chirstian so it wasn't second hand ramblings. And both Tacitus and Josephus lived in the time of Jesus like I stated. Tacitus wrote about Jesus before anyone else.
2. And? No one said anything about that. Make you feel good just to throw the obvious out or something? A man named Yeshua led a revolt.... what is there to argue there on my part? Other people were named Yeshua.... ok and? Lol I'm sure when George Washington existed other people were named George as well. Same thing, average man with a common name did something for a group of people and went down in history and had mad ducktales created for them post death by fanatics.There is yet another factor as I linked to in the past that the original manuscripts do not exist and know one knows who wrote them nor if they weren't embellished (it's evident with the myriad of translations that they were). So what other evidence is there? I'm not one to speculate about something that holds no evidence to have ever existed nor practiced normal or divine things.
What manuscripts the biblical cannon? I could care less about that it doesn't factor into my belief at all. Take the bible away there's still a man named Yeshua leading a revolt against Roman law. -
thedesolateone wrote: »what does it matter what a book says.i dont base my life on stephen king novels.but to each his own
Just because you don't base your life on Steven King novels doesn't make novels any less than they are. Novels are meant to be what they are and in respect to the craft, it should be read as such. Someone might think that Christine is still out there or there is a cemetary where dead pets can come to life, but it doesn't change what novels are. Well, what is to be said of the Bible you might say? The Bible is...what the Bible says it is and any approval or disagreements doesn't change it. -
alissowack wrote: »Just because you don't base your life on Steven King novels doesn't make novels any less than they are. Novels are meant to be what they are and in respect to the craft, it should be read as such. Someone might think that Christine is still out there or there is a cemetary where dead pets can come to life, but it doesn't change what novels are. Well, what is to be said of the Bible you might say? The Bible is...what the Bible says it is and any approval or disagreements doesn't change it.
Your sig is hilarious. I hope you're joking though, lol -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Tacitus wrote about Jesus before it's believed that any biblical scripture was written. Josephus wrote about him after only the Gospel of Mark. Both lived during the time that Jesus would have lived however, Tacitus was a historian for the Romans during the time Jesus was crucified.
Not while he was living no but most writings of people come post death during that time.
Okay so Jesus believed in a ? and really believed he was his son and got himself killed for it so he could go to heaven, that's still not a con man it means he was crazy. I wouldn't consider Jim Jones or Charles Manson con men yet they both had followers willing to die for them.
It sounds more reasonable to me that he stood against the Romans and was crucified for it and the legend began because he was the "messiah" they hoped for. What links btw? I never said I had links I said based on the period and happenings I've come to the "assumption" that him being a regular man that tried leading a revolt was the most probable case.
Again your opinion. I can care less whether he conned people or not. Neither of us have solidified proof so it doesn't matter. You must think he did being your trying to fire up an argument and I don't, leave it at that it is what it is.
Which I think the roman historian at the time of his crucifixion does.
1. Wrong. Tacitus, Josephs, and Lucian were not Christian. Lucian wrote the opposite of what Christians preached and wasn't Chirstian so it wasn't second hand ramblings. And both Tacitus and Josephus lived in the time of Jesus like I stated. Tacitus wrote about Jesus before anyone else.
2. And? No one said anything about that. Make you feel good just to throw the obvious out or something? A man named Yeshua led a revolt.... what is there to argue there on my part? Other people were named Yeshua.... ok and? Lol I'm sure when George Washington existed other people were named George as well. Same thing, average man with a common name did something for a group of people and went down in history and had mad ducktales created for them post death by fanatics.
What manuscripts the biblical cannon? I could care less about that it doesn't factor into my belief at all. Take the bible away there's still a man named Yeshua leading a revolt against Roman law.
Parts of the work of Josephus are in question do them being altered. The rest is second hand info from Christians. He recorded the ramblings of Christians in support of their supposed deity.
Origen, the Christian historian claimed that Josephus never met him.
Tacitus only repeat the stories uttered by Christians.
This holds the same with Lucian with his encounters with Christians..
None met or knew of Jesus before his death nor very closely afterward.
All of these people had run ins with Christians not Christ. This is all second hand knowledge based off of the already flourishing cult of Christianity. Regardless, your opinion that Jesus was a freedom fighter is valid in the context if he did exist do to the unrest of the time.
I mentioned the common names because it throws a larger question over the possibility of pin pointing this version of Jesus in history. Maybe he wasn't a con man but can you separate all that was written about Jesus the man from the myth? -
And for the record, I believe Jesus in all likelihood did exist, but not as the savior as many in the world have made him out to be. There are some historical records of a man named Yeshua made by non-Christians, and this figure was known as someone with some followers.
Do I believe Jesus was a con man? Not sure, but he had con-man qualities, like exaggerating his gifts and "powers". The Bible over and over again shows Jesus to be a man who gave himself ? -like abilities, but who knows, maybe his followers just put that info in there. I consider Jesus to be a moral version of Charles Manson. He had lots of groupie followers, but he was not as heroic a figure as some make him out to be. Jesus was ahead of his time though, but I truly feel the Buddha had more honorable messages. Jesus never mentions slavery as being an evil act, while the Buddha says it is. Not trying to compare philosophers, just saying. -
FuriousOne wrote: »None met or knew of Jesus before his death nor very closely afterward.
Tacitus wrote his book 14 years after Jesus' death. He was the official record keeper at the time Jesus was crucified and kept record of it. He wouldn't record something that did not happen for sure. A influential man named Yeshua was crucified this is fact.All of these people had run ins with Christians not Christ. This is all second hand knowledge based off of the already flourishing cult of Christianity. Regardless, your opinion that Jesus was a freedom fighter is valid in the context if he did exist do to the unrest of the time.
The only story I trust is Tacitus'. Because the ? he recorded was official records. So it's not second hand knowledge on his part. The others yes and I've already said that.I mentioned the common names because it throws a larger question over the possibility of pin pointing this version of Jesus in history. Maybe he wasn't a con man but can you separate all that was written about Jesus the man from the myth?
Huh? I already did separate the man from the myth. I could care less if the Yeshua in the bible lived or not, I just said I believe a regular man named Yeshua in that time was very influential and died because of it and this is likely to be the man that the mythical bible Jesus is based on.
