How do we KNOW that it was JESUS???

[Lawdog]

There is much evidence for the Life of Christ, and so recent in relative historical time was his life that no serious historian doubts his existance, it would be like doubting the existance of the Roman Emperor Augustus. In fact, there is barely the same amount of evidence for Augustus. Christ left a world-changing religion which we are still debating. what did Augustus leave? who debates Augustus?

Jesus declared that he was the INCARNATION of GOD. Concerning this there are three possibilities:
Such a statement would be evidence that he was insane, or else a liar, or indeed that he was God.

If he was insane, why did so many follow him? Why was He taken seriously by the Pharasees and Romans, indeed, to such an extent that they crucified him?

If he was a liar, what advantage in risking death would promoting the such a grand deception have? He knew that they would execute anyone who said such things. It was well known that the Jewish punishment for such a heresy was death.

could he be both a liar and insane?

the trial and execution shows that he must be either/or:.
It is doubtable that a man can be both crazy and truly guilty of lying, for if his statements were found to be false, they would be attributed to his madness, and so any punishment of his would be ameliorated (not given the fullest punishment)
BUT CHRIST WAS PUNISHED WITH A MOST IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, the ultimate punishment which can be given!
so they did not consider him crazy.

If he was a liar with a suicidal tendency, this would be a mental disorder, which would make him crazy. But we have ruled that out already. The trial would have brought such madness out. Nor do any of his teachings suggest that killing is something he would approve of, or lying.

This leaves us with only one choice:

DEUS MAIESTATIS OMNIPOTENS

 

[(Q)]

There is much evidence for the Life of Christ

Stop right there!

There is NO historical evidence whatsoever to suggest the Christ existed. You'll need to provide that before moving on.

This leaves us with only one choice

There are other choices left open; 'he didn't exist and the whole Christ story was made up by Paul' is also a choice.

But assuming he did...

If he was insane, why did so many follow him?

People will follow other insane people because they are as gullible as you.

If he was a liar, what advantage in risking death would promoting the such a grand deception have?

He never promoted a deception - Paul made the deception years later when he wrote about Christ. The religion should be call Paulianity.

he would have had to go live on his own self-made colony in the desert, like David Koresh.

So, if Koresh was both insane and a liar, why did so many people believe and follow him?

In other words, you have answered your own questions.

 

[(Q)]

This leaves us with only one choice

There are other choices as well; 'he never existed and Paul made up the whole story.'

 

[Bells]

If he was insane, why did so many follow him? Why was He taken seriously by the Pharasees and Romans, indeed, to such an extent that they crucified him?

Hitler was also insane yet millions quite happily followed him and took him seriously enough to give their lives for him.

If he was a liar, what advantage in risking death would promoting the such a grand deception have? He knew that they would execute anyone who said such things. It was well known that the Jewish punishment for such a heresy was death.

The word power comes to mind. Risking death further perpetrates the deception. The followers would take him more seriously if he went against the rules and the norms.

If he was both crazy and a liar, he would never have been allowed in the sacred temple area, and he would have been recognized as a well known heretic and punished with death.

Ermm he was allowed in the temple area until he upturned the tables on the way in. He was recognised as a heretic and WAS punished by death. So by your own definition he was both insane and a consumate liar.

If he were both crazy and a liar, he would have had to go live on his own self-made colony in the desert, like David Koresh. (The Essenes would never have taken him).

Cult leaders that are deemed as insane by society don't always live in communes. David Koresh may have lived in an armed camp along with his followers but he also spent quite a bit of time in town. His compound was also not in the desert but was merely a large tract of land close to town. In most instances, they are pushed by society to live from from town and civilisation because their views clash with others and create conflict.

In fact, you'd probably find that religious leaders who are in fact insane and liars tend to live in towns and cities along with their followers. After all, how else would they recruit members and spread the word. Heaven's Gate is one cult that resided in the middle of suburbia and their leader was insane and a liar who led his followers in a suicide pact. Aum Shinri Kyo have an insane leader and yet most of the followers of Shoko Asahara lived in the main cities and towns to spread the word.

 

[Lawdog]

Hitler was also insane yet millions quite happily followed him and took him seriously enough to give their lives for him.

How many people did Jesus kill? Hitler offered his followers earthly Glory. Jesus guarenteed his followers suffering, exile, and scorn from their own people.

Ermm he was allowed in the temple area until he upturned the tables on the way in. He was recognised as a heretic and WAS punished by death. So by your own definition he was both insane and a consumate liar.

He was a heretic according to the Jews, indeed, but he was executed for sedition by the Romans. Why seek the death of a harmless insane man, a dreamer who thought he was God? Its not like he was going around preaching the overthrow of the state, the synagog, or the Romans.

To kill one that is innocent of wrongdoing was a great horror in those days. So why did they do it?

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

There is much evidence for the Life of Christ, and so recent in relative historical time was his life that no serious historian doubts his existance,

If true then you will have no problem quoting at least one single piece of evidence – please do so now otherwise you have no credibility with your claim.

it would be like doubting the existance of the Roman Emperor Augustus.

No not at all. There is a great deal of real independent evidence for the Roman Emperors – there is no similar equivalent for the alleged Jesus.

Jesus declared that he was the INCARNATION of GOD.

You must first establish that he existed before we can start discussing potential evidence for what he might have said. You cannot use what you are trying to prove as part of your proof.

If he was insane, why did so many follow him? Why was He taken seriously by the Pharasees and Romans, indeed, to such an extent that they crucified him?

These are part of Christian mythology and have not yet been established as real events – you must first establish that these events occurred before you can use them as evidence.

 

[Lawdog]

The four gospels. They are historic documents.
Jesus is also spoken of in the jewish historian Josephus.
The existance of relics as well, such as the Shroud of Turin, physical evidenvce of his life on earth.

 

[spidergoat]

Jesus' claim about divinity can be interpreted in many ways. One of the most plausable is that he was talking about the nature of everyone as inseparable from the devine. He did not say I am THE son of God, as has been misunderstood, but A son of God. In other words, "son of" means "of the same nature as". My further interpretation is that Jesus experienced what is now known as enlightenment, which is when our illusion of a self, or ego, is revealed to be simply an idea, and that we are really the environment. In such a light, it is easy to understand what Jesus taught. With separateness, there is greed and violence, with the realization that we are each an aspect of the same thing, which he called God in the language of the time, we treat others as parts of our own body.

This experience was not knowledge and could not be passed to others. The disciples tried to make it into knowledge and necessarily failed, creating Christianity, a pale imitation of the true God experience. It wasn't limited to Jesus, a great many ordinary people have similarly woken up from the bad dream of culture and started down the road to become truly human.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

The four gospels. They are historic documents.

No these are documents written by unknown authors, mythmakers, long after the alleged Jesus died. Mark was the first and written some 50 years after the alleged crucifixion – a long time for any potential eye-witness testimony to be held significantly suspect or likely non-existent.

Jesus is also found in the jewish historian Josephus.

There is only a single obscure paragraph that has now been established as a fraud – inserted by Christian zealots some 300 years after Josephus wrote his documents.

The existance of relics as well, such as the Shroud of Turin, physical evidenvce of his life on earth.

No these are only allegations of evidence – no link has yet been made.

 

[Lawdog]

Well I think there is no need to carry your tom-foolery any further, if you are resistant to plain evidence.
1) they are historic documents
2) Josephus' statement has been shown to be genuine by competant authority
3) a relic like thev shroud is valid evidence, especially a wide collection of genuine relics kept from that era which have been validated by archeologists, such as we have.

HERE IS THE Scientific Study OF THE SIGN PUT Over JESUS When he was crucified.

 

[Silas]

Josephus can be completely discounted. Why would a Jew suddenly talk like a Christian at the one point in his history where he mentions Jesus? Its falsity is evident.

That's not to say that I disbelieve in a historical Jesus, because I don't.

But that is one fantastic shot of Robert Powell! He's really funny in The Detectives with his mate Jasper Carrott.

 

[Lawdog]

Josephus can be completely discounted. Why would a Jew suddenly talk like a Christian at the one point in his history where he mentions Jesus? Its falsity is evident..

If you actually read what he says, its evident that he is not talking like a christian, but as someone who has found evidence that a remarkable man was executed. He never says anything about Jesus as God.

]

 

[(Q)]

Robert Powell also played Captain Walker in the film, 'Tommy.'

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Ahh you want to trade experts with book references -

Try - The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
Try - The Christ Consipracy by Acharya S.

Both these works demonstrate the mythical nature of Christian claims and show the unlikelyhood that an historical Jesus ever existed.

 

[§outh§tar]

What does "DEUS MAIESTATIS OMNIPOTENS" mean?

 

[Lawdog]

Omnipotent God of majesty

 

[spidergoat]

All this talk about wether Jesus existed or not is irrelevent fiddling while Rome burns. If he were right before you speaking english, lawdog, you wouldn't understand a word. Jesus wasn't creating a religion, but abolishing the legalistic religion of the scribes in favor of gnosis, or direct experience. That's why he didn't write anything down.

 

[Lawdog]

Jesus was a reformer. He was not a gnostic.

 

[spidergoat]

Who is talking- Lawdog, or 2000 years of miserable theology that went before you?

 

[Yorda]

Atheists say that the Bible is a myth, but why would someone write so much and claim that it is true if it wasn't?

Atheists say that Christianity is wrong, but it has helped many people.