Pagan Roots? 5 Surprising Facts About Christmas

blackascoal said:
Belief in the biblical Jesus .. quite honestly is moronic .. but it's a BELIEF, thus it doesn't require facts.

Real critical scholars believe in science, not superstition and fairy-tales.

The real Jesus never called himself the son of god.

The Council of Nicea determined that.
Click to expand...

you really need to get your facts straight when discussing this issue because you are grossly uninformed.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Click to expand...

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry to disagree with you, but the majority of authorities agree that the gospel of John was written by John as well as agreeing that the gospels ARE supporting documents written by men contemporaneous with Christ.......a handful of atheist detractors notwithstanding.....
Click to expand...

Contemporaneous? Are you certain about that?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Tacitus wrote of Christ in 116 AD. He did not witness Christ's supposed persecution, it is not likely he interviewed anyone that did and he did not provide a source. Just as with Josephus, it is still possible that he was simply echoing what he heard from Christians.

It's enough for a reasonable person to find his existence compelling but not without question or doubt. It's not as well established as the existence of many other historical figures from earlier dates who did not, reportedly, have the power to perform miracles.
Click to expand...

It was a history he was writing. Again, had the evidence existed that Jesus was fictional rather than an historical figure, the Romans most certainly would have advertised that fact. That they never did, in fact quite the opposite, points strongly in the other direction than your jump beyond all logic into "that person never existed". Whether he was Divine or not is a Faith, just as believing that Mohammed was a prophet is Faith, or that Moses wandered with all the Jews in the wilderness for 40 years, but his existence in history is well established.

You may wish to call his divinity fictional, but pretending that the man didn't exist is just poorly supported wishful pretense. No serious scholar would support this "theory".
 
cannabis said:
you really need to get your facts straight when discussing this issue because you are grossly uninformed.
Click to expand...

You are quoting from a book that is no longer relevant and has no genuine pedigree. That is not and cannot be proof of anything.
You are discussing a belief here and by its nature a belief cannot be proven, certainly not by the men in whose interest it was to promote it.
That's why the words belief and faith are used (in English obviously).
 
Damocles said:
It was a history he was writing. Again, had the evidence existed that Jesus was fictional rather than an historical figure, the Romans most certainly would have advertised that fact. That they never did, in fact quite the opposite, points strongly in the other direction than your jump beyond all logic into "that person never existed". Whether he was Divine or not is a Faith, just as believing that Mohammed was a prophet is Faith, or that Moses wandered with all the Jews in the wilderness for 40 years...

You may wish to call the divinity fictional, but pretending that the man didn't exist is just pretense. No serious scholar would support this "theory".
Click to expand...

How would you classify Robin Hood?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Okay, then now you are back to bac's claim that it's just as good as believing in Santa Claus (which I don't completely agree with). You just simply choose what you want to believe, dude.

It is not simply a matter of faith. Good history is supported with evidence of multiple verified and, hopefully, contemporary sources. The only proof of Christ are the claims of the early Christian church a lifetime after he supposedly lived. It is not very good proof of his existence. It's a little more than Santa Claus, but there is no reason to pretend as if it is an unquestioned and established fact.
Click to expand...

Hey now Santa is real how else could NORAD track him?
 
blackascoal said:
Belief in the biblical Jesus .. quite honestly is moronic .. but it's a BELIEF, thus it doesn't require facts.

Real critical scholars believe in science, not superstition and fairy-tales.

The real Jesus never called himself the son of god.

The Council of Nicea determined that.
Click to expand...

Here you say "the real Jesus", as if you believe that an historical figure, around which a religion was formed, existed. Which was my point.
 
Lowaicue said:
You are quoting from a book that is no longer relevant and has no genuine pedigree. That is not and cannot be proof of anything.
You are discussing a belief here and by its nature a belief cannot be proven, certainly not by the men in whose interest it was to promote it.
That's why the words belief and faith are used (in English obviously).
Click to expand...

did i say anything about proof?

quoting from the book is proper. and really, what difference does it make to you as you don't believe it anyway.
 
I think Jesus existed and was a great humanitarian, which was extremely progressive for his time.
However that he was of virgin conception, THE son of God, etc I do not believe.
 
Well no one is questioning the antiquity of the bible just it's factualness concerning god, etc.

Is Atlantis proven to exist? There is a very old story about it.
 
Damocles said:
It was a history he was writing. Again, had the evidence existed that Jesus was fictional rather than an historical figure, the Romans most certainly would have advertised that fact. That they never did, in fact quite the opposite, points strongly in the other direction than your jump beyond all logic into "that person never existed". Whether he was Divine or not is a Faith, just as believing that Mohammed was a prophet is Faith, or that Moses wandered with all the Jews in the wilderness for 40 years, but his existence in history is well established.

You may wish to call his divinity fictional, but pretending that the man didn't exist is just poorly supported wishful pretense. No serious scholar would support this "theory".
Click to expand...

The claim that they did not deny his existence does not prove anything. It's not even good circumstantial evidence as it would be almost impossible for them to prove he did not exist. First, you would have to prove they did not deny his existence which would be just as impossible.

As I have already stated, I think he existed. I just don't see anything that is conclusive. There is plenty of basis on which to question it.

Moses was almost certainly a composite or a fiction.
 
Damocles said:
It was a history he was writing. Again, had the evidence existed that Jesus was fictional rather than an historical figure, the Romans most certainly would have advertised that fact. That they never did, in fact quite the opposite, points strongly in the other direction than your jump beyond all logic into "that person never existed". Whether he was Divine or not is a Faith, just as believing that Mohammed was a prophet is Faith, or that Moses wandered with all the Jews in the wilderness for 40 years, but his existence in history is well established.

You may wish to call his divinity fictional, but pretending that the man didn't exist is just poorly supported wishful pretense. No serious scholar would support this "theory".
Click to expand...

the romans were good record keepers...so how do you explain that there is no roman written record of jesus' existence - part of the myth of jesus is that his 'parents' went to jerusalem to be 'taxed', at that time that was the equivalent of our census, but there is no record of his birth

how do you explain that?
 
Damocles said:
What Faith was built around this figure? What do you think of Paul Bunyan?
Click to expand...

i think his statue/idol north of eureka, california is the most amazing thing ever. i pay homage to him everytime i pass that way.

using his name to curse never caught on though. pauldammit...just doesn't seem to have the same ring as using jesus or god. interesting isn't...when you really think about it.

you might want to smoke something first...i might have.
 
Don Quixote said:
the romans were good record keepers...so how do you explain that there is no roman written record of jesus' existence - part of the myth of jesus is that his 'parents' went to jerusalem to be 'taxed', at that time that was the equivalent of our census, but there is no record of his birth

how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

how many people, who were sentenced to death by crucifixion, did the romans keep records about?
 
uscitizen too said:
And the gospels disagree to some extent on key things.
Click to expand...

There is more they disagree upon than agree upon.

The more we know, the more the scholars question the very historical existence of Jesus. There are several theories of how the story was created.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Josephus' account amounts to a couple sentences and he was not a contemporary.

It is not that the history is questioned but the source.

The gospels are not believed to be eye witness acounts. Just because they carry the name of an apostle does nit mean they were written by one.
Click to expand...

Josephus account of Jesus may have been a forgery, an interpolation.

The Gospels are not written first hand, they are not historical documents, they are stories of faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top