chi vampirism

[scholar]

So, if he rose from the grave, what does it mean? That's the important thing. Good, so if we accept for the sake of argument that he rose from the grave, now what? Did he see his shadow and go back in?

Seriously, the answer isn't simple either, because it has to realistically address why he was killed in the first place. Why was he killed? What was it about the story that makes it necessary for someone horribly killed by the Romans to come back to life?

Then you have to sort through why Mark shows him freaking out because he felt he was completely abandoned by God on the cross and why Luke shows him calm and serene and talking about the certainty of heaven? Which was it? Which version are we to believe? Academics think Mark was earlier, so why did Luke write about a "superman Jesus" just a few years after Mark's (more believable) human Jesus?

These are rhetorical questions, because I think I have some understanding of the answers (or at least I flatter myself that I do). I'm not asking these things to be a jerk about any of this, but because having actual answers to these questions is important to understanding and discussing, say, most of ensuing western civilization. How the heck did this particular group of stories end up taking over all of Europe (and most of the Americas) for the next 1500 years? And why are they so rapidly losing steam today? And then, how do they tie into the question of how to deal with people who suck the life's blood out of the people around them?

These are the kinds of issues that I sometimes find interesting.

[JDK]

I didn't say there was no historical evidence of Jesus. I said there's no evidence he rose from the grave.

[b]You must have meant to say because the historical Figure Paul and John write about it...you just wont believe thier word:

1Corthians 15:6
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present but some are fallen asleep.

Or...........http://www.earthharvest.org/en/chris...odEvidence.htm

"The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence. The place is of geographical definiteness, the man who owned the tomb was a man living in the first half of the first century; the tomb was made out of rock in a hillside near Jerusalem, and was not composed of some mythological gossamer, or cloud-dust, but is something which has geographical significance. The guards put before the tomb were not aerial beings from Mt. Olympus; the Sanhedrin was a body of men meeting frequently in Jerusalem. As a vast mass of literature tells us, this person, Jesus, was a living person, a man among men, whatever else He was, and the disciples who went out to preach the risen Lord were men among men, men who ate, drank, slept, suffered, worked, died. What is there ‘doctrinal’ about this? This is a historical problem" (page 386).

"Let it simply be said the we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world" (Page 360).

The resurrection of Christ enjoys a wealth of evidence which includes:

1. The testimony of history:

A Jewish historian by the name of Josephus wrote at the end of the first century AD, in his Antiquities: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And even now, the race of Christians, so named from him, has not died out."

Josephus was a Jew trying to please the Romans and he would not have related this story if it were not true as it was not pleasing to the Romans, portraying Pilate as condemning the "Christ."

2. The testimony of the apostles:

Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Law at Harvard University, wrote in An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice: "The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact" (Greenleaf, Simon. Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965 (reprinted from 1847 edition).

After the crucifixion the apostles went into hiding, afraid of the persecution of the authorities (certainly not possessing the courage of breaking into Jesus’ tomb and "stealing" his body as the chief priests bribed the guards to represent), yet of the twelve apostles, eleven went on to die martyr’s deaths preaching that Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead. Peter denied Jesus several times after Jesus had been arrested but a short time after his crucifixion and burial Peter was in Jerusalem preaching boldly under the threat of death that Jesus was the Son of God who was resurrected. So fervent was Peter’s faith that when it came time for his own crucifixion he asked to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy to die as Christ had. Thomas who had put his fingers in Jesus’ nail prints to believe died a martyr’s death when he was thrust through with a spear. James, Jesus’ brother, who had been skeptical of His claims died a martyr’s death by stoning after Jesus appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:7).

It is hard to die for a lie. In recent history we’ve seen some die for political causes they believe in, but none die for what they don’t believe in. Something transformed these intimidated, cowering apostles into powerful spokesmen of their faith. Jesus had appeared to them. In the Book of Acts we are told that Jesus had presented Himself alive to his apostles. "He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, NASB).

3. Jesus had in fact died on the cross:

While hanging on the cross, "When Jesus....had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for the Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe" (John 19:30-35, NASB).

"And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, ‘Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.’ And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:36-39, NASB).

"And when evening had already come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, a man who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:42-45, NASB). The centurion had knowledge that Jesus had died, otherwise he would not have confirmed the fact to Pilate and Pilate would not have granted the body to Joseph of Arimathea for burial.

"And Joseph bought a linen sheet, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen sheet, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus were looking on to see where He was laid" (Mark 15:46-47, NASB).

4. The Stone:

Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, came to anoint Jesus on the first day of the week when the Sabbath was over. The women were concerned and discussing who would roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb so they could anoint Jesus with the spices they had bought. When they arrived at the tomb, the stone "had been rolled away, although it was extremely large" (Mark 16:1,3,4, NASB). Matthew also describes the stone as "a large stone" (Matthew 27:60). It is generally believed the stone weighed about two tons.

[JDK]

5. The Seal:

Of more importance than the size of the stone, aside from the fact that a large stone would have deterred potential robbers, was the seal which was set on the stone. The Pharisees went to Pilate and informed him that Jesus had said that after three days he would rise again. They requested that Pilate give orders that the grave be made secure until the third day, "lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.’ And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone" (Matthew 27:64-66).

A.T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: R.R. Smith, Inc., 1931) described the probable method used in sealing the stone "...probably by a cord stretched across the stone and sealed at each end as in Dan. 6:17(‘And a stone was brought and laid over the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the signet rings of his nobles, so that nothing might be changed in regard to Daniel.’). The sealing was done in the presence of the Roman guards who were left in charge to protect this stamp of Roman authority and power. They did their best to prevent theft and the resurrection (Bruce), but they overreached themselves and provided additional witness to the fact of the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus (Plummer)."


7. The Cover-Up:

Pilate’s response to the Pharisees was "You have a guard," which can be interpreted you may have a Roman guard or you already have your own guard in the form of the temple police. Prevalent authority concludes that a Roman guard was posted. Otherwise, why would the Pharisees go to Pilate to make the grave secure. They wouldn’t have needed Pilate’s authorization to post the temple guard which was under their control. When Jesus resurrected, in fear of Pilate’s wrath, the guards went to the chief priests and reported all that had happened (Matthew 28:11). The chief priests gave the soldiers a large sum of money to misrepresent what had occurred: "You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ ‘And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble. And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day" (Matthew 28:13-15, NASB).

Because of the strict discipline in the Roman military, a Roman guard would have reason to fear the consequences of dereliction of duty administered by an angry Pilate who would have accused them of sleeping on the job while the body was stolen, a capital offense (death). Evidently the chief priests had influence over Pilate and promised the fearful Roman guards protection if they lied and sweetened the pot by giving them a large sum of money. The chief priests would not have had to bribe a temple guard under their direct control. Their recourse to bribing the guards evidences Jesus’ body was missing and had not been stolen.


Matthew describes what happened that night while the guard was on duty, "... a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; and the guards shook for hear of him, and became like dead men" (Matthew 28:2-4, NASB).

8. Suffering of Jesus:

Some have said that Jesus did not die on the cross, but merely passed out. After he was placed in the tomb, he revived, got up, and left.

What this argument completely overlooks is the physical trials Jesus suffered prior and during the crucifixion leading to his death. Prior to being taken prisoner Jesus traveled on foot throughout Palestine and it is reasonable to assume was in good physical health. Anticipating his ordeal on Thursday evening in Gethsemane Jesus suffered great mental anguish, and, as described by Luke, a physician, sweated blood. Bloody sweat is a rare phenomenon but may occur in very intense emotional states and is the result of hemorrhaging into the sweat glands (William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MD; Floyd E. Hosmer, MS., AMI, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," JAMA, March 21, 1986 - Vol 255, No. 11, p. 1455).


Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution. A short whip was used of several braided or single leather thongs in which were imbedded small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bone to tear the flesh. The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged. Flogging was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. The resulting bleeding set the stage for circulatory shock and determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.

The Roman soldiers spat on Jesus and beat Him on the head, placing on Him a crown of thorns. So weakened was Jesus that the Roman soldiers had to press Simon, a Cyrenian, to bear the cross. Since the entire cross probably weighed over 300 lbs. only the patibulum or crossbar, weighing 75 to 125 lbs., was carried. It was placed across the nape of the victim’s neck and balanced on both shoulders.

Romans preferred to nail their victim’s hands to the crossbar. Remains found in an ossuary near Jerusalem dating from the time of Christ of a crucified victim reveal that tapered iron spikes 5 to 7 inches long and 3/8 inch wide were used. These spikes were driven through the wrists rather than the palms. The Romans also preferred to nail their victims’ feet.

The weight of the body hanging from the cross fixed the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and severely taxed exhalation. Thus, breathing was shallow and, "Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexation of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia" (JAMA, March 21, 1986 - Vol 255, No.11, p.1461).

Survival on the cross ranged from three to four hours to three of four days and was related to the severity of the scourging. When the scourging was relatively mild, Roman soldiers would expedite death by breaking the legs below the knees thereby suffocating the victim. By custom, one of the Roman guards would also pierce with body with a spear wound through the heart or with a sword.

The gospel of John informs us that, "When Jesus...had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit" (John 19:30). So that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, Pilate was asked that the legs of those crucified might be broken. "The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:32-34, NASB).

To allege that Jesus "swooned" rather than died on the cross and later revived in the coolness of the tomb, regained his strength after the extensive physical trauma he’d been through (including a spear thrust through the heart), pushed aside a two ton stone, and spent the next forty days ministering to his followers across the Holy Land is ludicrous. To examine the extensive historical evidence of His resurrection attests to his deity and gives us hope that by believing in Him, as he sincerely promised, we have eternal life.

There's also stories that the Romans stole Jesus body from the tomb because they were worried if his body was there that he'd become a martyr, and this is where all the stories of 'rose from the grave' came from.

Anyways, whatever. All I can say, JDK, is I absolutely abhor Christians because of people like you. Religious fanatics, IMHO, are the curse of this earth, and even worse than just regular stupid people.

BTW, if you prove with science that someone can 'rise from the grave', then maybe it will give your claims some credence. But until then you do sound pretty much like a lunatic. At least though you're not claiming to have seen Satan like my dad claims he has.[/QUOTE]

[JDK]

Historical Reliability of the Bible
Are the New Testament documents reliable?

Luke is the consummate historian. For example in Chapter 3, Luke informs us with great specificity, “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness” (Chapter 3; 1-2).

Tiberius became emperor in August, AD 14, and according to the method of computation employed in Syria which Luke would have followed, his fifteenth year would have commenced in September to October AD 27.

The Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, mentions three Passovers from the baptism of Jesus by John until His crucifixion (John 2:13; John 6:4; John 11:55), the Last Supper celebrated before the Feast of the third Passover (John 13:1).

The third Passover from AD 27 would have been in AD 30. It is therefore generally agreed that the crucifixion of Christ took place about AD 30.

When were New Testament gospels written per scholarly opinion?

When the New Testament Gospels were written is important as the memory of a witness to an event fades with time. Events are more accurately recorded if they are recorded when the event is fresh in the recorder’s (witness’s) mind. If information is attenuated with the passage of time the likelihood of error in relating the event is increased.

The Gospel of Luke per prevalent opinion was written by the same author the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the “former account.” For example both are addressed to “Theophilus.” They both have a similar style and vocabulary. Historian Colin Hemer provides the following evidence why Acts was written between A.D. 60 and 62:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
2. The Jewish War of 66 AD between the Jews and Romans is not mentioned.
3. The persecutions of the Christians by Nero in the late 60s is not mentioned.
4. The death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62 AD recorded by Josephus in “Antiquities of the Jews” is not mentioned.
5. The prominence and power of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, prior to their subsequent hostility to Rome.
6. In Acts the Pharisees are treated relatively sympathetically which would have been unlikely after the council of Jamnia and the Pharisaic revival leading to renewed conflict with Christianity. This is not the case in Luke’s gospel
7. Acts appears to have been written prior to Peter’s arrival in Rome.
8. Acts was written at a time when Gentile “God-fearers” were permitted in the synagogues, a pre-70 date.

There is now a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates. Former liberal scholar William F. Albright states: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (“Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands”, 136 from “Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,” Norman L. Geisler).

It is generally believed the Gospel of Luke was written shortly after Acts, Mathew shortly after 70 AD and John around 100 AD. In his book “Redating the New Testament” John A.T. Robinson, renown in launching the “Death of God” movement, places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from before 40 to after 65. All the gospels would have been written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of the events vouching for the reliability of the gospels. Jose O’Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran on March 18, 1972 as a piece of the Gospel of Mark whose date was ascribed to AD 50).

“The date of the writing of Acts depends on the date we affix to the third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first. There are strong arguments for dating the twofold work not long after Paul’s two years’ detention in Rome (AD 60-62)” (F.F. Bruce, “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable”).

FF. Bruce continues “The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence … There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul. I accept them all as Pauline, but the remaining eight letters would by themselves be sufficient for our purpose, and it is from these that the main arguments are drawn in our later chapter on ‘The Importance of Paul’s Evidence’.

“Ten of the letters which bear Paul’s name belong to the period before the end of his Roman imprisonment. These ten, in order of writing, may be dated as follows: Galatians 48; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 54-56; Romans, 57; Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians, c. 60.” The Pastoral Epistles per their diction and historical atmosphere (changed state of affairs in the Pauline churches) were probably compiled later than the other Pauline Epistles in 63-65 AD. This does not present a problem for those who believe in a second imprisonment of Paul in Rome in the year 65 at which time he was probably executed.

[lunghushan]

JDK, no offense, but this was a CULT. It was a bunch of people who wrote texts, and about 350 years or something after it was started, they decided to have a council and decide which cult texts to include in the bible.

That is NOT historical evidence. That is not 'documentation'. In 350 years any sort of stories could have been totally blown out of proportion, anything could be written. It's not proof, it's not evidence, it's NOTHING ... nothing at all. And dating isn't that accurate anyways.

You want evidence, drop an apple from your hand and see how fast it hits the ground. That's evidence.

You want evidence, go to Egypt and look at the Great Pyramid, or Greece, to look at the ruins of the Aparthenon or something.

But the Bible is not evidence. In the Hindu religion there is a book called the Mahabharata that talks about flying chariots, flying darts (missles, whatever), ghandarvas coming from heaven ...

The Hindu book is older than the Bible, and lots of people believe that. You expect me to believe that just because it's written in an old book?

Bottom line is ... there is no proof of this. Nothing at all.

[JDK]

F.F. Bruce concludes that the time between the evangelistic events related in the New Testament and when they were recorded was short giving them trustworthiness as the information would not have been corrupted with time (and subject to mythological embellishments).

Original Documents:

A multiplicity of manuscripts close to the time when the first original manuscript was created is evidence for an uncorrupted “chain of information.” Discrepancies between the oldest available manuscript and the most current copy of the same manuscript helps determine the authenticity of the most currently available manuscript.

German theologians in the 19th century argued that the Gospel of John was not composed until at least 160 AD. Therefore the events related of Jesus’s life were not of much historical use.

A fragment of papyrus about two and half by three and a half inches was purchased in Egypt in 1920 containing five verses from the eighteenth chapter of the gospel of John.

In 1934 C.H. Roberts of Saint John’s College, Oxford, sorted through papyri at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England and recognized this portion of John’s Gospel. From the style of the script he concluded it originated between A.D. 100 and 150. Adolf Deissman, a prominent paleographer was convinced that this papyrus fragment dates back to at least the reign of Hadrian, the Roman Emperor (117-138 AD) or even Trajan (98-117AD).

The fact that this fragment of a copy was found along the Nile River in Egypt, far from Ephesus in Asia Minor, where John probably composed his gospel, gives credence to an even earlier writing of the Gospel of John as it took time for it to reach Egypt.

Attesting to an earlier authorship of the Gospel of John, William F. Allbright states that evidence from the Qumran community shows that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is most likely early first century (“Recent Discoveries in Palestine’ from the “Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,” Norman L. Geisler). “Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.,” (“From Stone Age to Christianity,” 23).

Manuscripts in Existence

We have in existence 5,664 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 to 10,000 Latin vulgate manuscripts, and 8,000 Ethiopian, Slavic, and Armenian manuscripts (source Lee Strobel’s interview of Bruce M. Metzger in “The Case For Christ”). The Codex Sinaiticus, the only complete New Testament, and the Codex Vaticanus both date to about 350 AD and are all in Greek capital letters.

The New Testament is extremely wealthy in manuscript attestation if compared to the textual material for other ancient historical works.

Quoting F.F. Bruce again, “For Caesar’s “Gallic War” (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59BC –AD 17) only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the “Histories” of Tacitus (c.AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his “Annals,” ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.”

“The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from the eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC).”

“Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.”

[lunghushan]

And there are millions upon millions of comic books out there, on all sorts of topics.

So do you think that the X-Men are real? Spiderman? Hell, there's even 3 Spiderman movies and a cartoon show.

In 2000 years they'll probably think Avatar the Last Airbender is truth or something ... get it??? They'll will probably be a religion around it, if Islam doesn't wipe out everything before then.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy some account just because there's some written words. There's plenty of copies of Plato's works around (ironically because they were preserved by Islam), and you aren't going to believe the story of Atlantis, are you?

No, of course not.

Bottom line is Xtians are annoying. They are annoying in church and they're even more annoying when they come onto boards and start spouting their nonsense. They were annoying when they were a cult during the Roman times, they were annoying when they were killing people in the Crusades, they were annoying when they went around killing 'pagans', they were annoying when Hitler was slaughtering the Jews with the backing of the German church, and they're annoying today with Evangelicals trying to make the U.S. an Xtian nation.

[NJM]

the fact that Jesus rose from the Grave.!!

Does it really matter whether he did or not?

You disagree with atheism, do you not? Just so you know, stuff like what you post is what makes people want to be atheists. You refuse to accept without fact, you refuse to accept new ideas. You have no faith in anything, embellishing and making up facts is not faith. What you are doing is trying to shape history and the world into your own image.

You cannot reply to what we post with quotes from fundie websites anymore. You cannot reply to us with quotes from anything that is not unbiased when regarding fact. Quote the bible, but don't quote those who pervert it. Doing what you are doing here is immoral, you regard only select pieces from people's posts. It's incredibly rude to do this, it makes people not want to talk to you. You keep posting two posts in a row before someone posts in between them, instead of just adding to the first post with edit. It is totally rude. Please present your information in a proper fashion.

[lunghushan]

Does it really matter whether he did or not?

The most logical explanation for all of this is that Jesus was the illegitimate child of a poor Jewish couple. Because everybody knew he was a illegitimate he was persecuted, so he probably spent his time as a nerd would spend their time, in the Temple, talking to priests and stuff, because he was probably picked on a lot. They probably didn't have many libraries back then or places where nerds hang out.

Plus, the texts show that he has read the Hebrew texts or at least was very familiar with them. Given the illiteracy of people in that day and age, that would be rare unless he had hung out extensively with priests or people in the temple.

So at some point he decided to start preaching, probably because it was the only way he could get any attention, and got a few followers. Probably not a lot of followers, but a few followers. Probably because the Jews were looking for a Messiah because of the Roman occupation. You also notice he started preaching outside of his hometown, and when he went back to his hometown they gave him a hard time.

So then the Romans decide to crucify him, as they did a lot of people, and they made a tragic error in judgement, because he became a martyr. They started a cult around him, and the cult gained in popularity, because people follow stupid cults as people do.

(They're still following stupid cults such as Christianity and Islam today, with like billions of followers).

The Bible even says there were others crucified that day, and makes mentions of other people preaching at the same time.

Because the Romans probably disposed of his body in the night, trying to NOT make him a martyr, that's probably how the entire 'resurrection' story started.

I mean, give me a break. 'Virgin birth'? 'Resurrection'?? It's a load of hogwash. Bottom line is Jesus was poor illegitimate child of a carpenter, right?

But it still doesn't answer the question is why do billions of people believe in Christianity and Islam? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Obviously the two religions aren't compatible, so both can't be right. So either the billion+ Christians are right, or the billion+ Muslims are right, or they're BOTH WRONG.

Add to that there are a billion+ Hindus, right? So which is right and which is wrong? It would seem that they can't all be right, correct?

You know, I bet what happened is that Christ started preaching because given his social status, the poor illegitimate son of a carpenter, he probably couldn't become a priest. Plus, priests were Levites, right? He wasn't a Levite. He probably hung around them because of persecution (there's even mentions of Mary taking him to the temple), and started preaching because he wasn't one ... that's probably how all this trouble started.

[NJM]

The most logical explanation for all of this is that Jesus was the cabron child of a poor Jewish couple. Because everybody knew he was a cabron, he was persecuted, so he probably spent his time as a nerd would spend their time, in the Temple, talking to priests and stuff, because he was probably picked on a lot. They probably didn't have many libraries back then or places where nerds hang out.

So at some point he decided to start preaching, probably because it was the only way he could get any attention, and got a few followers. Probably not a lot of followers, but a few followers. Probably because the Jews were looking for a Messiah because of the Roman occupation.

So then the Romans decide to crucify him, as they did a lot of people, and they made a tragic error in judgement, because he became a martyr. They started a cult around him, and the cult gained in popularity, because people follow stupid cults as people do.

(They're still following stupid cults such as Christianity and Islam today, with like billions of followers).

The Bible even says there were others crucified that day, and makes mentions of other people preaching at the same time.

Because the Romans probably disposed of his body in the night, trying to NOT make him a martyr, that's probably how the entire 'resurrection' story started.

I mean, give me a break. 'Virgin birth'? 'Resurrection'?? It's a load of hogwash. Bottom line is Jesus was poor illegitimate child of a carpenter, right?

But it still doesn't answer the question is why do billions of people believe in Christianity and Islam? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What does that have to do with my post?

[lunghushan]

What does that have to do with my post?

You're asking what does it matter if he rose from the grave or not. I was posting the most likely scenario, which is that the Romans probably moved his body to try to stop him from becoming a martyr. Which totally back-fired.

That simple screwup probably is what started all this nonsense. So I'd say it's pretty important to the whole thing.

[NJM]

You're asking what does it matter if he rose from the grave or not. I was posting the most likely scenario, which is that the Romans probably moved his body to try to stop him from becoming a martyr. Which totally back-fired.

That simple screwup probably is what started all this nonsense. So I'd say it's pretty important to the whole thing.

What I meant was "what does it matter whether or not he was actually ressurected or not, or if his body was just moved?"

[lunghushan]

What I meant was "what does it matter whether or not he was actually ressurected or not, or if his body was just moved?"

Oh ... ??? Who knows ... obviously these people believe he was resurrected for some reason. It's highly doubtful they'd entertain any other possibility.

[mantis108]

"Let it simply be said the we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world" (Page 360).

The exact same "truth" (circumstances and all) can be said about General Guan/Kwan whom btw was reportedly saw both by his enemies and many common folks after he was executed by his enemy. So why is General Guan's worship is considered cult thing and the Jesus cult isn't? Why the GD double standard?

Everything that has been presented are no more than circumstantial evidence at best and pure speculations and conjectures in reality. But you have the right to have faith and believe whatever the heck you want. The only thing is that don't hold the GD holier than thou double standard attitude and claiming circumstantial evidences as proofs and facts. Becareful of what kind of water you are walking on, it can drown you just as quickly as it can float you.

Oh one more thing, to say that your God is the only true GOD means that you MUST acknowledge the existence of other Gods first. It's all relative - Yin Yang. Otherwise there is no need for that kind of a statement.

Mantis108

[lunghushan]

Oh one more thing, to say that your God is the only true GOD means that you MUST acknowledge the existence of other Gods first. It's all relative - Yin Yang. Otherwise there is no need for that kind of a statement.

Mantis108

Not to get all sci-fi on you, but if you are dealing with a primitive race that believes in a bunch of deities, you could claim a new deity and say that your deity is the only true (real) deity.

That wouldn't necessarily be acknowledging the existence of other deities, just acknowledging the existence of their fake deities. (The existence of their belief in their fake deities).

I didn't know the stuff about General Gwan being seen alive after death. So much for JDK's argument of taking CMA and being somehow brainwashed to worship General Gwan. The topic has never come up at any place I've ever been.