Was Jesus the god that Christians say he said he was?

[Frenger]

Your "would purpose" is the a priori idea, to show that Christianity is wrong, and atheism is true.

Ach Nein! I wish people would get this right, Atheism isn't a truth claim, it simply means we see NO evidence for any god, in the same way you don't see any evidence for Allah, we see no evidence for your god.

I also fail to see why you thought AronRa wasn't citing his sources as I think he gave about 20 biblical passages with the chapter and verse, and as this topic is just about whether the bible fits in with the majority concensus of the Christian Community, I don't know what else you want.

 

[australopithecus]

The thing is, Vyck has been told this on this forum hundreds of times. At this point he is proactively being dishonest when he asserts atheism as a truth claim, or makes no distinction between gnostic or agnostic atheism.

 

[VyckRo]

VyckRo claimed to have read the whole thread, and then commented apparently having no idea what I said. First he is unaware of my explanation for the origins of Christianity. Secondly, I am not the only person to have reached this conclusion. Many Christians have shared this interpretation too, including Isaac Newton and some of the founding fathers of this country. I did not legitimize anything the Romans did either. I mentioned the eruption of Vesuvius to show that there were historians around recording notable events, but no one seems to remember anything contemporary about Jesus, and that is still apparently true. There remains no extra-Biblical evidence of the man, Jeshua bar Yosseff, nor of any of the other fables in the Bible either.

If you still had any credibility at this point, VickRo, you would have sacrificed it by citing Jerry Falwell and Liberty University. And you call me an idiot?!

ok AronRa

"if you still had any credibility at this point, VickRo, you would have sacrificed it by citing Jerry Falwell and Liberty University. And you call me an idiot?!"

Stop being such a cry baby! no one made you an idiot! the person quoted by you was accused that he use an idiot argument!

About Jerry Falwell and Liberty University, I just said, that I like his explanation more then yours.

I hope that you will appreciate that I quote an argument, that comes from your culture. And you, instead of appreciating this and take it as a man ... whit some Coke and a Hamburger, you blame me for using it.

I thought that if I will use some sources from my library as:

Giovanni Filoramo
Mircea Eliade
Marie-Francoise Baslez
Rosemary Drage Hale
John Meyendorff
Kenneth Scott Latourette
you will look at them whit crossed eyes

-So your accusation against me, that I made you an idiot is a lie by the AronRa standards? or just a misunderstanding?

" First he is unaware of my explanation for the origins of Christianity"

- Which is?

"Many Christians have shared this interpretation too"

- Therefore is not even an "argumentum ad populum"

"including Isaac Newton and some of the founding fathers of this country"

a desperate attempt to legitimize your hypothesis by a argumentum ad verecundiam?
Do you realize that these people are nullity on the theological level?

let me do cite some names:
Isaiah the Solitary, Evagrius the Solitary, John Cassian, Mark the Ascetic, Hesychios the Priest, Neilos the Ascetic, Diadochos of Photiki, Antony the Great, Theodore of Edessa, Maximos the Confessor, Thalassios the Libyan, John of Damascus, Philotheos of Sinai, Ilias the Presbyter, Theophanis the Monk, Peter of Damascus, Symeon the Metaphrast, Symeon the New Theologian, Nikitas Stithatos, Theoliptos Metropolitan of Philadelphia, Nikiphoros the Monk, Gregory of Sinai, Gregory Palamas, Ignatios the Xanthopouloses, Kalistos Angelikoudis

...and obvious the "church fathers" Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa.

"I mentioned the eruption of Vesuvius to show that there were historians around recording notable events, but no one seems to remember anything contemporary about Jesus"

- FacePlam
- What "notable events"?the death of an uncle? 25 years later? expressly mentioning:
"You will read what I have written, but will not take up your pen, as the material is not the stuff of history."
Practical at this point, you should recognize that you have chosen a very bad example.

"but no one seems to remember anything contemporary about Jesus"

- What should that mean, after you? You know that we have many historical personalities for which we do not have contemporary sources?

My favorite example is Alexander the Great, now open your eyes and read what I write below

By order of Alexander, the royal chancery official wrote a daily diary, that has not come down to us. Some of his generals and collaborators, as
Ptolemaios son of Lagos, Admiral Nearh, the greek historian Aristobulus of Cassandreia, and many others also, kept a journal, but none has come down to us. His opponents also have written about him ... nothing has come down to us. ( with a few epigraphic, numismatic and papirologic exceptions, difficult to dated)
We write today the history of Alexander the Great from what is written 3 or even 5 centuries after Alexander's death. ( see Diodorus Siculus, Iustinus, Quintus Curtius, Plutarh and Arianus)
thank God ... that we do not only write history from contemporary sources

"There remains no extra-Biblical evidence of the man"

- Because the best evidence... were included in the Bible.

AromRa, I see you are very slippery, you suggest that Jesus did not exist, but apparently you only say that we do not have "no extra-Biblical evidence", you suggest that Jesus did not claim that he is God, but you apparently only say that the Bible does not specifically mentions that.
What do you actually say.
List your claims as 1, 2, 3,

1. Do you think that Jesus has been, or not a historical man?
2. Do you claim that Arianism has not been a reform that appeared later?
3. Do you claim that Jesus did not thought of himself to be God?

 

[VyckRo]

Your "would purpose" is the a priori idea, to show that Christianity is wrong, and atheism is true.

Ach Nein! I wish people would get this right, Atheism isn't a truth claim, it simply means we see NO evidence for any god, in the same way you don't see any evidence for Allah, we see no evidence for your god.

I also fail to see why you thought AronRa wasn't citing his sources as I think he gave about 20 biblical passages with the chapter and verse, and as this topic is just about whether the bible fits in with the majority concensus of the Christian Community, I don't know what else you want.

Atheism isn't a truth claim?
how come that are always atheists that trying to deny the existence of Jesus? or what Christians actually believe?
AronRa gave about 20 biblical passages? kidding? AromRa do not consider the Bible to be a trustworthy source so ... !!! :!: :roll:
And why we are takeing the protestant Martin Luther "sola scripture" as the "default position" ?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Atheism isn't a truth claim?
how come that are always atheists that trying to deny the existence of Jesus? or what Christians actually believe?
AronRa gave about 20 biblical passages? kidding? AromRa do not consider the Bible to be a trustworthy source so ... !!! :!: :roll:
And why we are takeing the protestant Martin Luther "sola scripture" as the "default position" ?

Jesus' non-existence is a truth claim. Any religion and ideology on Earth could hold that claim.

Atheism is just a state of being without theism.

While we're here, Vyck Why don't you have a seat and answer a few questions?

 

[australopithecus]

Jesus =/= theism. You should really know this, Vyck.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is exactly what is needed.

Vyck. I'm not a Christian - I'm a Pagan.

I do not believe your Jesus is divine nor do I believe in Yahweh.
Am I an Atheist, or am I a Pagan?

You do not believe that any Pagan gods are divine, nor do you believe in them.
Are you an Atheist, or are you a Christian?

 

[Frenger]

Atheism isn't a truth claim?
how come that are always atheists that trying to deny the existence of Jesus? or what Christians actually believe?
AronRa gave about 20 biblical passages? kidding? AromRa do not consider the Bible to be a trustworthy source so ... !!! :!: :roll:
And why we are takeing the protestant Martin Luther "sola scripture" as the "default position" ?

1 - No, atheism isn't a truth claim, you can be an atheist and believe Jesus existed or that he didn't, the two are not mutually exclusive. As for claiming to know what christians believe, I don't know anyone who asserts that as it is TOO f**king difficult. Everybody believes something different, what people try and do is find a common ground that the majority of Christians share and look at that, as a result, not everyone will fit into that area but so be it, it's the best people can do. What is always better is if someone says what they believe, but that only works one on one.

2 - You'd have to ask AronRa what he considers a reliable source but for the topic in question "Was Jesus the god Christians say he was?" he can only use the bible as there is no other written documentation about Jesus. His point is not whether the bible is reliable but whether Christians who do take it as fact actually know what it really says, that's the topic.

 

[AronRa]

I never get 'desperate' about anything, and certainly haven't shown any signs of being a 'crybaby' either. Neither do I need to legitimize my own opinion, but it is notable in this instance that it is shared by some brilliant scholars devoted to the study of this topic. However you want to misrepresent the account of Vesuvius does not change the fact that it was recorded by contemporaries. Yes, I know many personal documents were lost to antiquity, but that excuse is hardly adequate when God himself is in charge of inspiring, preserving, assembling, and keeping such things, and still many of those books were discarded by the authority of men.

The fact remains that there is still no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus nor of any of the other fables in the Bible. None of your smoke screens will obscure that fact.

1. Do you think that Jesus has been, or not a historical man?

No. I believe there was an actual cult leader who inspired much of the stories of Jesus' life, specifically things like when the people in Jesus' own home town didn't buy into his alleged miracles, or when Jesus cursed a tree after looking into it to see if it had fruit. Such stories imply a fallable human being doing things no omniscient being would ever do. Likewise his claim to be the gateway to God. That is the claim of a cult leader, not the genuine article.

2. Do you claim that Arianism has not been a reform that appeared later?

No. There was obviously disagreement in the earliest 'Christians' as to whether Jesus was wholly human or wholly divine. These were eventually integrated centuries later, apparently following the example of the Hindu trimurty. The fact that the scriptures do not actually support the idea of the trinity was brought up at the Council of Nicea, and several times thereafter. And no, other Christians such as Isaac Newton are not "nullity" on the theological level. All theological opinions are equal since no one can show that their interpretation is any more accurate than anyone else's, and no one can distinguish their religious beliefs from figments of imagination.

3. Do you claim that Jesus did not thought of himself to be God?

Obviously Jesus (the character in the Bible) did not think that he was God. If he were an actual person, then he seems to be doing exactly what Akenaten did, placing himself as the gateway to the sun-god; "No one gets to Aten but by me".

I don't know why I bother to explain things to someone who has already decided not to understand anything I say.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

These were eventually integrated centuries later, apparently following the example of the Hindu trimurty.

I don't know if we should necessarily discount the idea that they came up with it on their own. It does seem like a very Catholic compromise to say that both popular positions are correct. I'm reminded of instances of duplicate relics (say the skull of a saint or somesuch), to which the Church's response was very often, "they're both legitimate, it's a miracle!"

I don't know why I bother to explain things to someone who has already decided not to understand anything I say.

I ask myself this question all the time...

 

[VyckRo]

I never get 'desperate' about anything,

we will see!!

Neither do I need to legitimize my own opinion, but it is notable in this instance that it is shared by some brilliant scholars devoted to the study of this topic

Please, list a list whit their names!

However you want to misrepresent the account of Vesuvius does not change the fact that it was recorded by contemporaries

-I do not misrepresent nothing, I just tell you how it happened. There was no interest to record this event, the subject of the letters is the death of an uncle.

Yes, I know many personal documents were lost to antiquity, but that excuse is hardly adequate when God himself is in charge of inspiring, preserving, assembling, and keeping such things, and still many of those books were discarded by the authority of men.

- Let's not forget that God is not the only actor in this play, there is also your "revolutionary" friend. :lol: :lol:

The fact remains that there is still no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus nor of any of the other fables in the Bible. None of your smoke screens will obscure that fact.

- I continue to tell you that we as historians, we do not rely exclusively on contemporary evidence. And the books included in the Bible are pretty good in the absence of other testimony.

No. I believe there was an actual cult leader who inspired much of the stories of Jesus' life

No?/yes? continue to be slippery AronRa? and transform a field of science as History in a philosophical/sophist battle?
You see, If you deny His existence as a historical character then you put yourself in opposition to all scholars specialize in this area, if you say that it was a `cult leader who inspired much of the stories of Jesus' life` " then the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove your claims, and to deny the evidence presented so far in favor of the classical version.

Paul's Letter

​

Scholars states that,the story of Jesus is not a myth which grew with time, You will need to, prove that it was not so, and to bring evidence in favor of your theory
Again I remind you that here we speak of a scientific field, and that we are not competing philosophical, on who can produce the best arguments.

when the people in Jesus' own home town didn't buy into his alleged miracles

What miracles are you talking about?


http://www.theworkofgod.org/Devotns/Euchrist/HolyMass/gospels.asp?key=46

--- --
21. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
22. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
23. And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
24. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
25. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
26. But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
27. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
28. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
30. But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
-- --
Therefore you just exaggerate a little, to promote your predetermined ideas! correct?

or when Jesus cursed a tree after looking into it to see if it had fruit

He was at the same time, "Fully Man" and able to feel the humanity in all its forms.

No. There was obviously disagreement in the earliest 'Christians' as to whether Jesus was wholly human or wholly divine

not really, the only discrepancy was between the view: if he whas more divine then human, more human then divine, in contradiction with the orthodox view of "Fully Man & Fully God".For example was a group, that believed that Jesus was born as ordinary human but was adopted by God at baptism, or that Jesus had a human body and a divine mind, or that Jesus was a lower divinity then God

There was obviously disagreement in the earliest 'Christians' as to whether Jesus was wholly human or wholly divine. These were eventually integrated centuries later, apparently following the example of the Hindu trimurty. The fact that the scriptures do not actually support the idea of the trinity was brought up at the Council of Nicea, and several times thereafter.

Because of the persecutions, many of the early Christian texts, were lost, but the idea of the Trinity, it is found in the 2nd century
see:
- Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch ( for the Greek world)
- Quintus Tertullian ( for the Latin world)


Therefore there is no reason to make us believe that the concept of the Trinity, has gradually evolved over the years, centuries as "Trimurti"( that has evolved in almost 1000 years). Crucifixion of Jesus happened during the Prefect Pontius Pilate AD 26-36 ( see "Pilate Stone" ) most likely 30-33, and the first preserved mentions of Trinity ar around the date of 160-200 .
Furthermore, in the case of the association of the "Holy Trinity" whit "Trimurti" there is nothing more than bad analogy.

As is typical of Hinduism, there is more then one "candidate" for the position of the Supreme Divine Person. Reference is often made to the Hindu "Trinity": Brahma is the creator of the word, Vishnu is the preserver, and Shiva is the destryer of the world. This formulation, however, does not capture the richness and complexity of popular devotionalism. The Indian populace pays Brahma little atention, while both Vishnu and Shiva are quite popular. Another very popular deity, the Great Goddess, is not even mentioned in the "Hindu Trinity" formulation.
see:
Religions of the World - Hinduism, James B. Robinson.2004; p.49

Ignatius the second Patriarch of Antioch, which has followed Peter the Apostle, he was already talking about "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit "

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

The only thing one can support, is that the definition of "Holy Trinity", was explained in different ways, but not that it was an idea that evolved, over the centuries. Once Christianity was legalized the concern appeared, to explain the Christian religion in a more rational way . From here the impression that suddenly at the Council of Nicaea, a new religion appeared.

Newton are not "nullity" on the theological level. All theological opinions are equal since no one can show that their interpretation is any more accurate than anyone else's, and no one can distinguish their religious beliefs from figments of imagination.

-I guess here is that American principle, stating that everyone is right, but you see AronRa in this way several problems are born:
1. if you accept that Jesus is a historical character then what he preached is simply a matter of history. You can not say that, what Julius Caesar or Napoleon said or did, it is a subject free to be interpreted by anyone.
2. also, you can not have a discussion in which you claim, that you want to establish the historical truth, and affirm at the same time, that anyone opinions are equal valid (Then accept my opinion, and we stop talking)
3. It is totally dishonest, to reject dozens of sources, from that geographic area, that language, and a close historical period, and bring to your support, what some people believed one thousand and so years later on another continent. Especially the the last ones, relied solely on translations of translations, of only one of the books that the former have composed.

Obviously Jesus (the character in the Bible) did not think that he was God. If he were an actual person, then he seems to be doing exactly what Akenaten did, placing himself as the gateway to the sun-god; "No one gets to Aten but by me

No! Akenaten according to his cult, He Was GOD! Aton was only his personal God, that Akenaten favor. Aton was never a god of the masses, Aton was only the personal god of the Akenaten family and friends. For the masses, the Pharaoh remained the true God on earth.

And here and prove that AronRa lied:

"No one gets to Aten but by me"

In the poems that Akenaten dedicated to Aton never was said anything like that. The cult of Aton was a personal religion of the Pharaoh family, and there was no evangelism.

 

[VyckRo]

These were eventually integrated centuries later, apparently following the example of the Hindu trimurty.

I don't know if we should necessarily discount the idea that they came up with it on their own. It does seem like a very Catholic compromise to say that both popular positions are correct. I'm reminded of instances of duplicate relics (say the skull of a saint or somesuch), to which the Church's response was very often, "they're both legitimate, it's a miracle!"

I don't know why I bother to explain things to someone who has already decided not to understand anything I say.

I ask myself this question all the time...

I wonder this every time when I talk to an atheist.
you know that these guys, will would do anything to prove their predetermined conclusions. And they never accept an argument from the opposite side

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I wonder this every time when I talk to an atheist.
you know that these guys, will would do anything to prove their predetermined conclusions. And they never accept an argument from the opposite side

Well if they did accept an argument from theists they would, by definition, not be atheists. That said, I doubt that middle sentence is true.

 

[australopithecus]

you know that these guys, will would do anything to prove their predetermined conclusions. And they never accept an argument from the opposite side

Ignoring the supreme irony of this statement, I feel compelled to ask:

VyckRo. Why do you even post here? Your obvious disdain for atheists aside, you know full well we're not buying the nonsense you're selling. You've convinced no one nor will convince anyone. What exactly is your motivation?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

you know that these guys, will would do anything to prove their predetermined conclusions. And they never accept an argument from the opposite side

Ignoring the supreme irony of this statement, I feel compelled to ask:

VyckRo. Why do you even post here? Your obvious disdain for atheists aside, you know full well we're not buying the nonsense you're selling. You've convinced no one nor will convince anyone. What exactly is your motivation?

An internet circlejerk and getting material for whatever else he does besides post here.
He's not important enough to have even bothered me beyond the fact that he's a pathetically dishonest person to have a discussion with and the only thing he ends up proving is that english must be a second language due to his blatant inability to read what people around him are saying.

People who usually stand on a pedestal are performing for an audiance SOMEWHERE.

 

[VyckRo]

you know that these guys, will would do anything to prove their predetermined conclusions. And they never accept an argument from the opposite side

Ignoring the supreme irony of this statement, I feel compelled to ask:

VyckRo. Why do you even post here? Your obvious disdain for atheists aside, you know full well we're not buying the nonsense you're selling. You've convinced no one nor will convince anyone. What exactly is your motivation?

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum, and you will discussed only between yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are so tolerant on this forum that I see that Christians do not cease to post here!

2. To try to teach people like AronRa something! But is evident from this post how difficult is it. But I'm curious ... how far can he go in denying history

2 examples

"The fact that the scriptures do not actually support the idea of the trinity was brought up at the Council of Nicea"

Besides the fact that, the church would decide on another occasion about the scriptures, the idea of " trinity" was not the subject of the discussion, Arianism held that the God-Jesus is a creation of the God the Father. AronRa attempts to weave a whole spider web, from a predetermined conclusion.

"There was obviously disagreement in the earliest 'Christians' as to whether Jesus was wholly human or wholly divine"

The character: Human / Divine was discussed at the Council of Chalcedon, not Council of Nicea as AronRa suggests.

 

[VyckRo]

)O( Hytegia )O(
australopithecus
Anachronous Rex

So you "guys" have any opinion about this topic?

 

[bluejatheist]

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum, and you will discussed only between yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are so tolerant on this forum that I see that Christians do not cease to post here!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum, and you will discussed only between yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are so tolerant on this forum that I see that Christians do not cease to post here!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

)O( Hytegia )O(
australopithecus
Anachronous Rex

So you "guys" have any opinion about this topic?

I'm not an atheist. In fact, Dragan Glas is a Christian.
And Anachronus Rex is not an atheist, if I'm correct.

Come on, Vyckky - if you're going to try to insult us, at least know what you're talking about.

And, no, we're not "Grand Standing." I don't give a fuck about these guys - I don't run around the desert with them, they don't sign my paycheck, and I don't even know anything about their personal lives. Some of them write some good music, and many of them have good opinions though we will back and forth about various topics of different tiers of importance.

You have to actually give a fuck about what others think of you for a "Circlejerk" to occur.