A thought for the upcoming Easter.

[guillaumeb]

Today is Good Friday, the day that Christians believe is when Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was generally reserved for those who rebelled against the Roman State, so the fact that Jesus was crucified, with the title "King of the Jews" on a plaque fixed to the cross, suggests that to Rome, His crime was clearly treason.

What was His treason? It was stating that He was here to establish a kingdom. And His kingdom was based on what He called the new law that was to replace the old law of the Jewish Bible.

That new law, and the movement He created, have persisted for nearly 2000 years, and spread from one tiny corner of the vast Roman Empire to the entire world.

Those of us who call ourselves Christians attempt to follow His words, and attempt to follow His example. And we fail, and try again.

[Mariana]

1. You're a literalist now?

Jesus literally existed and literally was crucified for literally saying he was here to establish a kingdom.

[guillaumeb]

2. That Jesus existed is not really in doubt.

And crucifixion was generally reserved for those who advocated rebellion or treason.

[Mariana]

3. You believe some parts of the Bible are literally true.

Embrace your true nature, Gil. You're a literalist.

[guillaumeb]

4. Reread your response.

Now, explain why you used the word some, and further explain how you feel that some actually means all.

[Mariana]

7. No, some means some.

You're a selective literalist. You pick and choose which parts to believe are literally true and which to dismiss as fiction.

[Binkie The Clown]

5. I doubt that Jesus really existed, therefore that Jesus existed actually IS in doubt.

And my doubt is not the only doubt in that regard.

So to glibly dismiss the serious doubts among scholars concerning his existence with a glib "That Jesus existed is not really in doubt" does not settle anything.

[guillaumeb]

6. Allow me to respond:

Actually, allow a historian who identifies as atheist to respond.

Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that. But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

[Binkie The Clown]

8. "a historical preacher upon whom the Christian figure... was based."

That's a whole lot different from saying that Jesus Christ, as depicted in the New Testament existed, and light years away from claiming that this "preacher" performed miracles or rose from the dead.

And most sources I've read suggest that there was probably more than one such preacher upon whom the Jesus myth was based.

Take a look at Jesus in comparative mythology for suggestions as to the origins of the various Jesus myths. None of them was new or original with the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

9. You claimed to doubt His existence.

I believe you. However,

The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[Binkie The Clown]

10. I don't doubt the existence of "some preacher", only the eixstence of "Him"

... as portrayed in Biblical mythology.

[Voltaire2]

11. Do you believe this Jesus was a god?

Do you believe that this man god rose from the dead?

[guillaumeb]

13. Jesus is the son of the Creator.

[Voltaire2]

14. How many times did Peter deny Jesus?

I think you’ve exceeded the quota.

[marylandblue]

16. You reframed the question

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2018, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Something you never fail to point out when it is done to you and even claim when it is not being done. So why do you do it? And why don't you answer a simple yes-no question with a yes or no, one that most Chistians in my experience have no trouble answering at all

[Mariana]

17. He appears to be ashamed of his Christian faith. nt.

[marylandblue]

18. I don't see why, you can find Christians on either side of this question

[trotsky]

19. He is very careful not to commit himself to any kind of specific belief.

At least in this forum. Apparently his faith is too weak to stand up to questioning.

[Cartoonist]

12. The lie of Jesus' crucifixion

The Roman's were consistent in many of their practices. Hanging people on crosses was one of them.

Once nailed up, they stayed up as a reminder to others. They weren't taken down and put in a cave. They were left for carrion birds to pick away at the corpse.

Such an ugly end had to be cleaned up for publication, so we are to believe the Roman's made an exception for this traitor. If you believe that, then I guess you'll believe he rose from the dead.

[trotsky]

15. I knew you were a literalist.

Thanks for confirming.