EdHieron said:
In response to Player1X3's comment that Jesus was a historically proven figure:
As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.
At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is
really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.
"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."
If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.
Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"
Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.
Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "
I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) .
|
