What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God)

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#75941 Dec 12, 2012
SchoolandUniversity wrote:
Belief is everthing
So is nothing if you believe it.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#75942 Dec 12, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
And now a word from our sponsors...
He was on a roll... LOL

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#75943 Dec 12, 2012
RN Student wrote:
Bart claims to be an agnostic but when he talks about Christianity you can tell he has a certain disdain for it and even he admits Jesus existed.
He claims agnostic leaning towards atheism. I don't know if he has a real disdain for Christianity based on what i read so far. I do know he does not believe Jesus resurrected and claims he does not really know what happened post death of Jesus. Many of his assumptions about Jesus is easily refuted. For example he assumes Jesus was illiterate. That is refuted in Luke 4 where Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah in a Synagogue at Nazareth. One might ask, what is a snyagogue doing in a place located in Samaria since the two groups were hostile towards each other?

He also states,''One could easily argue the Bible is the most important book in the history of western civilization. What other book comes even close in terms of its historical, social, an cultural significance?...It is important for all of us--at least for all of us interested in human history, society, and culture.
One could also argue that Jesus is the most important person in the history of the West, looked at from a historical, social, or cultural perspective, quite apart from his religious significance.'' p.95.
The fact that ancient pagan or Jewish writers mention Jesus means a great deal. If they could have simply said he didn't exist they would have certainly preferred that than having to write against a claim of divinity. The problem was however that being within such a short time frame from his death they couldn't as others would rightfully denounce their claims as lies.
Yes, they denied the resurrection not the existence of Jesus. It is interesting the Jewish writers have Jesus down as a sorcerer which means they attributed his miracles to the Devil. They did not deny miracles happened at the hands of Jesus. John 8 has the Pharisees asking Jesus who is your father? Also v. 41.''We were not born of fornication.'' And v.48.''Do we not rightly say that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?'' This all ties in with the Jewish accounts depicting Jesus as a,''bastard son of an adultress.'' Having a Roman father.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75944 Dec 12, 2012
RN Student wrote:
Bart claims to be an agnostic but when he talks about Christianity you can tell he has a certain disdain for it and even he admits Jesus existed. The fact that ancient pagan or Jewish writers mention Jesus means a great deal. If they could have simply said he didn't exist they would have certainly preferred that than having to write against a claim of divinity. The problem was however that being within such a short time frame from his death they couldn't as others would rightfully denounce their claims as lies.
<quoted text>
Right. And another thing about Ehrman, he admits to being agnostic while heavily leaning towards atheism. So he doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus, but as a scholar and historian, he recognizes the validity of Jesus as a historical person. Jesus' existence was never even questioned by either Jewish or Greco-Roman opponents. Every credible historian knows that Rome did burn in 64 A.D., and that Nero did blame Christians for it. That much is fact. So by extension, there has to be a progression from 30s A.D. Palestine to 60s A.D. Rome. Myth Buster's claim that numerous secular contemporaries would have written about Jesus is speculative at best. As I pointed out in a previous post, it's surprising that anyone in the Greco-Roman world wrote about Jesus. Due to the nature of his alleged crime, and the extreme death penalty, he would be regarded as a nobody. In fact, that's how Tacitus writes about the early Christian movement. A Christian would have never written that the movement was "evil" or "superstitious." If there were any fraud or interpolation in Tacitus, it would look more like the altered version of Josephus' TF. What Tacitus wrote is entirely consistent with the views of a pagan Roman politician-turned-historian.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75945 Dec 12, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>He was on a roll... LOL
Yeah he was, and every inch was downhill!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75946 Dec 12, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So is nothing if you believe it.
Circular logic? LOL
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75947 Dec 12, 2012
RN Student wrote:
The site doesn't matter if the contents are accurate.
Wrong! You're a death-denying coward who'll probably never have the guts to acknowledge that organized religion is a hoax and Christian apologetics has been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75949 Dec 12, 2012
RN Student wrote:
The fact that ancient pagan or Jewish writers mention Jesus means a great deal.
The fact that there are precious few documents supposedly in support of an historical Jesus and each is a blatant forgery means everything. You continue to make a complete ass of yourself on a daily basis and should be seeking professional help for your mental illness, kid.
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75950 Dec 12, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
If there were any fraud or interpolation in Tacitus, it would look more like the altered version of Josephus' TF. What Tacitus wrote is entirely consistent with the views of a pagan Roman politician-turned-historian.
Once again, the Tacitus passage is another blatant forgery:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm#.UMitOq...

The Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75951 Dec 12, 2012
How many historians actually buy this? Zero, the writing style is very anti-Christian and perfectly in line with Tacitus' writings. Moreso the same words appear in each translation of the text so there is no reason for historians (which Ms. Murdock is not) to believe this to be a forgery or interpolation. Try again.
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the Tacitus passage is another blatant forgery:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm#.UMitOq...
The Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.
Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."
It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75952 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.
This quote comes from a website that is antagonistic towards Christianity and has a goal of discrediting Christianity under the disguise of "scholarly research." Not only is the information biased to extremes, but is also dishonest.

Tacitus is regarded as one of the finest Roman historians in antiquity. We can apply this same logic to discredit the "truthbeknown" website by using another historical example.

We can look at the American Revolution. There are no photographs of any of the battles. All of our knowledge has been gleaned from letters, battle reports, and oral histories passed on to others. One of the best historians of Colonial America, Charles McLean Andrews was born almost 100 years after the revolution(1863 - 1943)and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his work in writing history. He wasn't an eye-witness, and yet he was considered an authority on colonial life in America. He was also a Yale History professor. Somebody obviously placed a great deal of merit upon this man's research.

By contrast, Cornelius Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD) was born within 30 years of the reported events. While he wasn't a witness to Jesus, he wrote a very accurate history of what happened in Rome with regard to Nero and the early Christians. How did Christianity spread to Rome so fast in a time when modern media wasn't even a thought?
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75953 Dec 12, 2012
RN Student wrote:
How many historians actually buy this? Zero
Anyone with an ounce of common sense (obviously, not you) can tell the Tactitus passage has been forged. Murdock and other rational adults really put death-denying cowards like you in their place by exposing the utter stupidity of organized religion. You belong in a mental institution, kid.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-eta...

http://www.exminister.org/Barker-debunking-hi...

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/tacitus.html

"Christians lie that Tacitus spoke of Jesus and so Jesus existed. That is just their scraping at the bottom of the barrel in a desperate question for corroboration that Jesus lived."
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75954 Dec 12, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
This quote comes from a website that is antagonistic towards Christianity and has a goal of discrediting Christianity under the disguise of "scholarly research."
All rational adults oppose the abomination known as organized religion. No religious cult has any credibility because organized religion is a cruel and dangerous hoax. No reputable and objective scholar or rational adult in the history of the human race has ever found any credible evidence in support of an historical Jesus.

By progressive Christian, you unknowingly refer to typically ignorant and cowardly Christian godbots who work hard at rationalizing their self-degrading cultist lifestyle. You're ignorance of both science and history is appalling and you should be totally ashamed of yourself for being such a gullible fool.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75955 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
All rational adults oppose the abomination known as organized religion. No religious cult has any credibility because organized religion is a cruel and dangerous hoax. No reputable and objective scholar or rational adult in the history of the human race has ever found any credible evidence in support of an historical Jesus.
By progressive Christian, you unknowingly refer to typically ignorant and cowardly Christian godbots who work hard at rationalizing their self-degrading cultist lifestyle. You're ignorance of both science and history is appalling and you should be totally ashamed of yourself for being such a gullible fool.
Do you even realize how your hostility discredits everything you say? I have not been hostile to you at all. Yet for some reason you seem to take joy in degrading others. Why? What does it do for you?
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#75956 Dec 12, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
I have not been hostile to you at all.
Your cult deserves contempt because it's the most divisive political force in our country's history in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Your cult is responsible for this country becoming the laughingstock of the industrialized world.

You deserve contempt for being an ignorant and cowardly yet arrogant slave to Dark Ages dogma so completely milked of your free will that you lack the capacity to accept irrefutable facts in contradiction to your programming.

You'd learn more from the following 47 minute video than you would in a lifetime wasted in a religious cult if you had the guts to watch it objectively:

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75957 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult deserves contempt because it's the most divisive political force in our country's history in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Your cult is responsible for this country becoming the laughingstock of the industrialized world.
You deserve contempt for being an ignorant and cowardly yet arrogant slave to Dark Ages dogma so completely milked of your free will that you lack the capacity to accept irrefutable facts in contradiction to your programming.
You'd learn more from the following 47 minute video than you would in a lifetime wasted in a religious cult if you had the guts to watch it objectively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LksVbHxLRvYXX
So you think it's okay to be contemptuous of others who do believe in God? What does attitude do for you? What do you gain from it?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75958 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult deserves contempt because it's the most divisive political force in our country's history in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Your cult is responsible for this country becoming the laughingstock of the industrialized world.
You deserve contempt for being an ignorant and cowardly yet arrogant slave to Dark Ages dogma so completely milked of your free will that you lack the capacity to accept irrefutable facts in contradiction to your programming.
You'd learn more from the following 47 minute video than you would in a lifetime wasted in a religious cult if you had the guts to watch it objectively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LksVbHxLRvYXX
I watched the video. It's all bogus. Darren Brown is a fraud because he already started this project as an atheist with an objective to show the power of suggestion. The entire project was skewed to begin with. It's not objective at all. He said that Tom, Hayley, and Josh couldn't see anything. A pitch black crypt and they all claim to see things? That's not rational at all.

We don't believe just because we're told to. We don't believe just because of some feel good warm fuzzy sermon. We look at evidence. We do have very real experiences. Western civilization overlooks these and assumes that because they don't have these experiences that nobody else does either. This is ethnocentrism. It's bias, and not objective. Your video example is terrible. I thought you were more honest and intelligent than to post this nonsense.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#75959 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the Tacitus passage is another blatant forgery:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm#.UMitOq...
The Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.
Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."
It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.
"Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible."
John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 90

'But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus' own compressed style. The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean. The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome."
Robert Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 42-43):

"But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate."
Maurice Goguel (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 43):

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[40][41] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[40] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Chris...

Superior firepower busts the myth buster.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#75960 Dec 12, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think it's okay to be contemptuous of others who do believe in God? What does attitude do for you? What do you gain from it?
He has the foaming of the mouth disease.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#75961 Dec 12, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! You're a death-denying coward who'll probably never have the guts to acknowledge that organized religion is a hoax and Christian apologetics has been thoroughly debunked:
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/
Psycho babble, day one hundred and eighty seven.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 3 min Doctor_Who 2,613
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min here 65,134
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 min onemale 281,985
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min truth 654,705
Colin Kaepernick: the troubled mind of an Oreo 15 min Doctor REALITY 4
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min Toby 974,088
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min Peace_Warrior 618,754
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr T rules 863
More from around the web