Historical Jesus..Real?...or....

[LTS TRN 2]

A rehashed cult figure which had been utilized by a dozen or so other cultures in the region in during the five hundred years or so prior to the events so pornographically portrayed in the Mel Gibson movie? Let's review the evidence...

PROBLEMS WITH CLAIMS FOR JESUS’ HISTORICITY

--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;

--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;

--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;

--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;

--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;

--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;

--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;

--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;

--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;

--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even

--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.

THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.” (Barker, p. 360)

Noted religious historian and professor of German at Birkbeck College in London, G. A. Wells, observes in his book, The Historical Evidence of Jesus, that if one places early Christian documents in chronological order, it becomes evident that “only from approximately 90 did Christians regard Jesus as a teacher, miracle-worker and a near contemporary, crucified under Pilate.”

These documents, Wells declares, are striking in their lack of detail, indicating that the claims of their authors were most likely influenced “by the Jewish wisdom literature they knew well and by traditions they must have known concerning actual crucifixions of living men in Palestine one and two centuries before their time.” (Wells, pp. 216-217)

Wells concludes that “the Jesus of the earliest documents . . . [was] someone about whose life nothing was known, who had certainly not been a contemporary or near-contemporary of Paul, but who was later regarded as having lived about A.D. 30 and has having preached in Galilee before his death in Jerusalem, perhaps because he was identified with an obscure Galilean preacher of the same name (which after all was a common one).” (Wells, p. 216)

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered by Canadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, Why I Am Not A Christian:

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.

7. The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul’s heavenly Christ.

8. All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.

9. The Gospels are not historical events, but constructed through a process of ‘midrash,’ a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

10. ‘Q,’ a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

11. The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous
developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.

12. Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.” (Doherty, pp. vii-viii)



And there's lots more. But here's enough to shake off the comfortable sense that this "Holiday" is somehow based on real events, etc.

WAKEY WAKE!!!

[Wolfman]

But man-made "climate change" is as real as the sun rising tomorrow morning. Give it a rest.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, the sun appears to rise, just as it appears we've been fed a fat lie for about 1500 years now--one from which we all need a rest.

[MadRussian]

No, the sun appears to rise, just as it appears we've been fed a fat lie for about 1500 years now--one from which we all need a rest.

Well eat a face full of 00 buckshot, and take a permanent rest, foreskin gnawing fruitloop

[SunCoastSooner]

I'm going to preface this with... First of all we have a forum so this trash doesn't clutter the main board from morons like yourself. Secondly, I'm not a Christian, most who do use that forum are very well aware of that. Last but certainly not least you're a moron.

A rehashed cult figure which had been utilized by a dozen or so other cultures in the region in during the five hundred years or so prior to the events so pornographically portrayed in the Mel Gibson movie? Let's review the evidence...

There is a good portion of the mythology that is certainly rehashed... going through your list you cite none of those things though so you fail in proving any lucid point of your original statement with any supporting evidence.

PROBLEMS WITH CLAIMS FOR JESUS’ HISTORICITY

--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;

Was there a point to this statement? Anyone who has ever even glossed over the new testament is well aware that Paul never met Jesus; many of Jesus early followers from within the Canaan fertile crescent considered Saul and usurper.

--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;

Most Jewish/Hebrew and Aramaic texts doesn't describe any persons appearance unless it caused by an at of God itself. Congrats on proving your ignorance to the writing style of the culture and time.

--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;

Incorrect, the Hebrew Records were destroyed in the uprising 66-70AD intentionally by the Roman Legions.

--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;

The Jews at the time didn't speak Hebrew so it isn't unlikely that a passage from the Old testament was mistranslated from an ill educated Aramaic speaking Jew from Hebrew if they were not a hereditary priest or scribe.

--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;

There were over 3,000 crucifixions annually in the Roman Empire... I am absolutely unshocked that there isn't specific documentation of one specific case during this time... shocked I tell you.

--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;

They weren't on Titus either and he was a fucking Emperor.

--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even

Considering that Jesus was a title and not a name and the fact that he was dealing with dozens of people claiming to be the messiah at any one time during this period... once again not shocking.

THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.” (Barker, p. 360)

We have obvious records of James the Just being in charge of the Jerusalem sect immediatly after his brother Yosheua ben Joseph (Jesus) was no longer alive.

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered by Canadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, Why I Am Not A Christian:

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.

7. The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul’s heavenly Christ.

8. All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.

9. The Gospels are not historical events, but constructed through a process of ‘midrash,’ a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

10. ‘Q,’ a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

11. The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous
developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.

12. Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.” (Doherty, pp. vii-viii)



And there's lots more. But here's enough to shake off the comfortable sense that this "Holiday" is somehow based on real events, etc.

WAKEY WAKE!!!

1. Mark was a Pauline follower and not of the Jerusalem sect. This has no veracity toward the actual historical existence of "Jesus".

2. Incorrect... Tacitus refers to him Christus in his writings.

3. Paul was not an Apostle Period end of story quit fucking citing him as though he was. Saul was a Hellenised son of converted Jew from Tarsus. James the Just most certainly refers to him as his brother which is also confirmed by christian scripture.

4. Paul made this up and this was the cquse of the Paulinistic schism between him and James.

5. NO, not all ancients did... this is Hellenistic/Grecian thought process. Traditional Ethnic Hebrews certainly did not.

6. Once again does not have anything to do with whether "Jesus" existed or not

7. Jewish Wisdom? WTF? If you're trying to talk about Cabbulistic practices by the Magus don't attempt to confine all of Judaism in such a manner... the Sadduces, Pharisees, and Essenes did not.

8. This was disproven many years ago.. even Mark was based on an earlier writing, probably dating from the first century, that is refered to as "Q" and has never been "discovered". This has been proven through linguistics numerous times times since the 1970s.

9. You're a moron and I don't have time to explain this... go figure out what Barabbas means (since it like Jesus is a title and not a name as most assume who read the NT) and it will lead you to your idiocy.

10. Bullshiot, no one knows what "Q" was about because it has never been discovered and was most likely used by the Qumram community. The only reason it is even known to have existed is because of the numerous references to the writing.

11. This is the first of you points that is actually correct.

12. Incorrect... "Christian" documents rejected the notion of his divinity not his existence.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Suncoast,

Why does this bother you so much?

If someone told you there was a race of monkeys in Java that built a complete replica of the Washington monument, and the javanese were worshipping them, and it, I wouldn't care less.

Why do you?

Let it go man, just let it go.

You don't believe.

WE GET IT!!!!!!!!!!

[SunCoastSooner]

Suncoast,

Why does this bother you so much?

If someone told you there was a race of monkeys in Java that built a complete replica of the Washington monument, and the javanese were worshipping them, and it, I wouldn't care less.

Why do you?

Let it go man, just let it go.

You don't believe.

WE GET IT!!!!!!!!!!

I don't believe in Paul's version which prevailed... doesn't mean I don't believe "Jesus" existed. I get sick of hearing the ignorant speak out on it with their BS rather than arguing the actually valid points that are virtually irrefutable concerning "Jesus' " fulfillment of prophecy.

[poptart]

Paul never met Jesus

He did.

Paul met the resurrected Christ.

[SunCoastSooner]

Paul never met Jesus

He did.

Paul met the resurrected Christ.

Just like I met Elvis in Vegas last year right before a pink bunny rabbit hit the jackpot in slots at the TI.

[poptart]

"Christian" documents rejected the notion of his divinity

Jesus repeatedly referenced Himself as God.



:|

[SunCoastSooner]

"Christian" documents rejected the notion of his divinity

Jesus repeatedly referenced Himself as God.



:|

Only according to Pauline Texts... None are even second hand accounts but third and fourth hand at best. In the Gospels he refers to himself as "the son of G-d" and "the son of man", he also was no where close to the first Davidic descendant to be referred to as the "son of G-d" and "the son of man" was a very common phrase used by Essene Jews (especially in the Qumran community) to show one another as a member who had been initiated and served their requisite three years in "the wilderness" something that the new testament, in the Gospels, even cites as Jesus had done. Other phrases that were used by Essene Judaism to show initiation in "the community rule" are used throughout the gospels as well such as "turned water to wine", "for those with ears to hear", and "raised from the dead"... all statements that later Christianity began to use in the literal terms rather than the figurative coding that it was intended.

[poptart]

In the Gospels he refers to himself as "the son of G-d" and "the son of man"

True, He does.

In the Gospels He also repeatedly references Himself as God.

[smackaholic]

TROTS is real.

Will a mod remind let's turd........again.

[Diogenes]

I moved this to Theology so you shitdicks can discuss the existence of Jesus or the teachings of Casper the fucking ghost or whatever you people talk about.

They made this faggot a mod?

Whatever. This looks like TROTS material, but then again:

It's what it is. Nothing new. Nothing compelling.

[Diogenes]

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

Brilliant, Sherlock.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

Of course your dismissal can be dismissed because of the fact that you're a shit breathing moron.


3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.


4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.


Are you serious?
Try medication.


6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.

7. The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul’s heavenly Christ.

Yawn.

8. All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.

9. The Gospels are not historical events, but constructed through a process of ‘midrash,’ a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

10. ‘Q,’ a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.


Wrong, wrong and wrong.

11. The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous
developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.

12. Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.” (Doherty, pp. vii-viii)








And BTW.

Fuck off and die.
And have a nice Saturnalia (belated).

[SunCoastSooner]

Another post-mortem embellishment designed to confer legitimacy to the Jewish heretic who was himself the product of an illegitimate birth.

What made him illegitimate was not that he had a father other than Joseph. Joseph being of Davidic decent was expected to observe specific traditions concerning marriage. He impregnated Mary before their marriage had been formalized in all likelihood.

[poptart]

- Son of a god...no, wait Son of GOD. This has the added or even intentional benefit of obscuring his dubious parentage.

- Another post-mortem embellishment designed to confer legitimacy to the Jewish heretic who was himself the product of an illegitimate birth.

- According to Gospel, he was a cuckold. Of course they weave a lot of mystical mumbo jumbo around the event and try to spin it like God himself knocked up the silly bitch

Moses recorded the Word of God over 1,000 years before Jesus was even born that the Savior would be of a virgin birth - Genesis 3:15.


Adam and Eve both died a spiritual death and could therefore only produce ... death, so God immediately promised he would produce the Savior of Himself - not a descendant of Adam.

There is nothing embellished after the fact, or mystical, or dubious about the virgin birth of Jesus.

God gave his Word over 1,000 years before it happened, and it then happened.

He's pretty good that way.

[SunCoastSooner]

According to Gospel, he was a cuckold. Of course they weave a lot of mystical mumbo jumbo around the event and try to spin it like God himself knocked up the silly bitch, but it's clear in no uncertain terms that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He was step-father to Mary's bastard child.

Actually I believe it was only one of the "Gospels" that makes this claim. Mark, the oldest of the four doesn't.

[SunCoastSooner]

the Savior would be of a virgin birth - Genesis 3:15.

ie mystical mumbo jumbo. Meanwhile back at the ranch, things don't work that way. There is no such thing as a "miracle."

The passage doesn't even state any of the sort...
" And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

This is not a messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah other than in the generic sense, that the Messiah will be a human being who descended from Adam and Eve, i.e., someone of mankind. Other than that, this verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet.

[poptart]

The context of Genesis 3:15 can be important to see.

I'd recommend anyone read this, as it's SUCH an important portion of the Bible.



Genesis 2:16,17
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Genesis 3:1-21
1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20: And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.




From the beginning of God's creation of man, Genesis records that God dealt with ... the man (not the woman), who He created first.

MAN (Adam) was the represenative human.

He told the man such and such.
He did such and such with the man.
He gave the man authority and responsibility.
And so forth.

And then further, throughout the Bible, the seed (or offspring) is always spoken of in terms of a MAN's seed or offspring.

And yet here, in Genesis 3:15, which takes place right after THE GREATEST CALAMITY IN HUMAN HISTORY, God says that he will send the seed of ...

... the WOMAN, who will bruise the evil serpent's head.

This is surely NOT an offspring of Adam, and there is a very good reason why God didn't say He would send the offspring of ... the man, in Genesis 3:15.

All mankind has SURELY died.

And to think that at this time, immediately after the most devastating event in history, God is speaking to Adam and Eve about snakes, and man's relationship with them, is ... well ... just a silly thing.

Mankind became lost and God immediately gave the Gospel.

[Johnny Bold]

shake off the comfortable sense that this "Holiday" is somehow based on real events, etc.
WAKEY WAKE!!!

Bingo
Dec 25th is but a fictional materialistic date manipulated by your capitalistic masters to further their greed infested agenda.
- The Real King Of Kings Jesus was born in August.

THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

And Peter also denied knowing Jesus - three times

For the believer chums:
The nearer mankind gets to Christs' return - the greater the anti-christ crap will flow.
Til it rivers away - never to be brought to mind again.
Be strong and stay strong in knowing that these material heathen animals have nothing to offer, 'cept for the continual pain and misery which they create for themselves by trying to go it alone.

G-d Blesses The Believer

[SunCoastSooner]

shake off the comfortable sense that this "Holiday" is somehow based on real events, etc.
WAKEY WAKE!!!

Bingo
Dec 25th is but a fictional materialistic date manipulated by your capitalistic masters to further their greed infested agenda.
- The Real King Of Kings Jesus was born in August.

THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

And Peter also denied knowing Jesus - three times

For the believer chums:
The nearer mankind gets to Christs' return - the greater the anti-christ crap will flow.
Til it rivers away - never to be brought to mind again.
Be strong and stay strong in knowing that these material heathen animals have nothing to offer, 'cept for the continual pain and misery which they create for themselves by trying to go it alone.

G-d Blesses The Believer

He was born in September not August fuckstick.

[Diogenes]

shake off the comfortable sense that this "Holiday" is somehow based on real events, etc.
WAKEY WAKE!!!

Bingo
Dec 25th is but a fictional materialistic date manipulated by your capitalistic masters to further their greed infested agenda.
- The Real King Of Kings Jesus was born in August.

THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

And Peter also denied knowing Jesus - three times

For the believer chums:
The nearer mankind gets to Christs' return - the greater the anti-christ crap will flow.
Til it rivers away - never to be brought to mind again.
Be strong and stay strong in knowing that these material heathen animals have nothing to offer, 'cept for the continual pain and misery which they create for themselves by trying to go it alone.

G-d Blesses The Believer

He was born in September not August fuckstick.

Spring is more likely.

[SunCoastSooner]

Spring is more likely.

Actually I won't debate that. There are some pretty damn good theories put forth by authors and historians on the subject that I have read; a couple of them even cite his birth in the Spring as being the reason of his illegitimacy being an issue since Mary and Joseph's marriage would not have been formalized until the Passover due to the Davidic traditions concerning marriage.

[Diogenes]

Spring is more likely.

Actually I won't debate that.

Well agreeing with me is always a good choice.

[LTS TRN 2]

Some interesting takes, but none that actually display any evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. The variety of evidence, however, that he wasn't, but rather a local expression of a recurring mythical cult figure is voluminous. The main body of evidence here is simply that we can see clearly that the EXACT characteristics of Jesus were embodied by these earlier cult figures to a tee.

Start here,
http://www.entheology.org/POCM/getting_ ... _pocm.html

While there may be some validity--from personal psychological to the communal ethos--in this archetypal figure of ego-centric suffering, celibacy, and sacrifice, quite obviously it was never meant to be taken literally. This is obviously the toxic problem with modern "born again" Christer literalism, as fatuous and distorted as it's become.

[SunCoastSooner]

Spring is more likely.

Actually I won't debate that.

Well agreeing with me is always a good choice.

Doesn't mean it is correct and you are less often than you are... I just know there theories for both Spring and Fall births for Jesus. It certainly wasn't in December though.

[Johnny Bold]

End Time Is What End Time Does
This isn't the first, or the last attack on Christ that duped heathens are going to pull off.

Luke 21:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV