The Resurrection of Jesus - did it really happen?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by independent american, Apr 20, 2012.

  1. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know some will say, this belongs in the Religion section of the forum. That’s because they were inoculated with the idea that God or anything that has to do with God, must be put in this category labeled “religion” and separated from reality. Separation of civil and religious, when it comes to government, is one thing. Separation of God from all reality, is another. But since many people claim to believe in the existence of a God, and that includes many liberals, then there’s no point in putting God in a box labeled “religion” and ignoring Him.

    I don’t like to do that, to put God in a separate category and pretend that He exists only one day a week.

    In what follows, there’s a discussion that takes a hard look at some objections and arguments regarding the Resurrection.

    I think it’s relevant, since some of us celebrated Easter recently.

    If you listen to some of the top politicians these days, they claim to be Christians. Biden, Obama, former president Clinton and others, all claim to be Christians, but they don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that he was raised from the dead. Yet, they celebrated Easter, didn’t they? That makes them the biggest fools, since they celebrate an event that they don’t believe it happened.

    In the end, the whole debate about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, boils down to this: it either happened or it didn’t. The resurrection of Jesus is the most important thing in the whole Easter story. This is not about dogma, it’s about a historical event, whether it happened or not, and how that affects us.

    Here are some of the theories and objections related to the Resurrection.

    The theory that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was only in a state of coma.

    This theory doesn’t have any support. Historically speaking, the Romans would not let a man be taken down from the cross, until after they were sure he died. In the Gospel of John, this aspect is recorded. It says that when the Roman soldiers came to Jesus “And they saw that he was dead, they did not crush his legs, but one of them pierced his side with a spear; and blood and water came out of it”. (Gospel of John 19:33-35)

    Samuel Houghton, MD, from the University of Dublin said:

    “The importance of this fact [mentioned by John] is clear. The apostle John observed blood flowing from Jesus’ body, blood flow that was distinct from the watery liquid that followed. This was a result of a ruptured artery in the heart. The apostle John could not have understood the medical significance of this fact, which would have had tremendous significance for a doctor. The blood and the water that proceeded from his pierced rib, are a proof that Jesus had already died”.

    Another theory, related to this one, is that Jesus after he was in a coma, was buried and woke up from the coma. He rolled the stone away, walked out and scared the Roman soldiers who ran away, thinking he rose from the dead. To assume that a man who was flogged almost to death, dehydrated, beaten and crucified, would have been able to roll away a huge stone that weighed almost a ton, is absolutely idiotic. Another failed skeptical theory.

    The disciples came, fought with the Roman soldiers, overcame them, and took Jesus from the grave.

    The Romans had trained soldiers to guard the tomb. A few Jewish fishermen who did not have much if any military training, could not have overcome a group of professional Roman soldiers. Another thing, if someone would have dared to attack those Roman soldiers and open the tomb (which had the official seal of Roman authority on it), they would have been hunted down and wiped out by the Romans. That would have been an event which comes close to a revolt, and it would have surely been recorded by ancient historians of that time. Yet, there is no mention in secular historical sources from that time, that such a revolt or incident took place three days after the crucifixion of Jesus.

    The reality of the empty tomb was a problem for the priests and the Romans, not for the Christian Jews at the time of Jesus Christ. It was a problem for them, because they couldn’t explain what happened to Jesus, where did he go. The Jewish religious leaders and the Romans could not deny the fact that the grave was empty, so they made up an official version of the story. “The priests gave them a lot of money and said to them: “Tell them so: ‘His disciples came during the night while we were sleeping and they stole his body’. So the soldiers took the money and did as they were told. And this rumor is among the Jews even unto this day”. (Gospel of Matthew 28:12-15)

    They even told the soldiers that if this rumor would reach the ears of Pontius Pilate, “we will persuade him and secure you from any concern” (verse 14).

    This detail is important, because they knew that for Roman soldiers to say they slept while on duty, it meant the death penalty. Roman law was severe. The soldiers probably were reluctant to lie about this, because they would put their own lives in jeopardy. The priests and Pharisees knew this, and they told the soldiers that they didn’t have to worry about Pilate hearing this, because they would calm him down, so he wouldn’t execute them for saying they slept during the watch.

    If the disciples took the body, which they didn’t do, the religious leaders and the Romans could have arrested them and force them to tell the truth, where they hid the body. But they didn’t do that. They didn’t arrest them and didn’t ask them, where they took the body. At one point, the religious leaders threatened Peter and John, two of the disciples, (see in the first chapters of the Book of Acts, New Testament) and told them to stop talking and preaching in the Name of Jesus. But that was about it. There was no mention of the body of Jesus when they threatened them.

    Another theory made up by atheist and agnostic scholars, is that the disciples were fanatics, so they didn’t mind being persecuted and dying for what they believed in. If we look at the events, with Jesus being arrested and tried, and then dying, we see that the reaction of the disciples was not fanatical. When the priests and guards from the Temple came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, all the disciples fled. (Matthew 26:56) Not one of them was willing to die for Him. Peter was the only one who tried to put up a fight, but two or three hours later, he denied Jesus Christ. (Matthew 26:69-75) He was cornered by an angry mob, and was afraid. He said he never met Jesus. So then, if they weren’t willing to fight and die for him while he was still alive, while they could still turn things around, why would they die for him when he was already dead?... Why would they lie about Him being raised from the dead, and risk their lives for something they knew not to be true?...

    All fanatics die for something they think it’s true. But in the situation of the disciples of Jesus, they knew if it was true or not, the resurrection. They knew if it didn’t happen or if did. They didn’t believe, they knew.

    It's continued below, because this post had more than the maximum number of characters allowed.
     
  2. sec

    sec Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    7,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wrong section unless of course you mean Obama and then yes, he is risen
     
  3. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In fact, the disciples did not even believethat Jesus was raised from the dead by God, when the women who saw him, told them. “And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). The term “idle tales” is synonymous with “fairy tales”. The disciples thought these were fairy tales, what the women were telling them. They did not believe, until they themselves saw Jesus alive and raised from the dead. That’s what changed their attitude, from a bunch of defeated and scared men, to victorious and bold preachers who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the victory of God over death and sin. Some of the disciples had families, they had every reason to resume their normal life after the defeat they suffered on Good Friday. Peter, Andrew, James and John, were fishermen. They could have gone back to fishing for a living, not preaching something that would get them into trouble. Therefore, nothing but the miracle of seeing Jesus alive after three days, would have motivated them to preach.

    Thomas, one of the disciples, did not believe either. He didn’t believe the other disciples when they told him: “We have seen the Lord!” (John 20:25) He said to them that unless he saw his wounds from the nails and touched his pierced side with his hands, he wouldn’t believe. (John 20:25-26) Thomas had a normal reaction, like any human being. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that nothing would have changed his mind and made him a preacher of the Gospel, except that he saw Jesus Christ alive, after eight days (John 20:26-30).

    Thomas answered and said to him: “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: “Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who did not see, and yet have believed”. (John 21:28, 29)

    The disciples of Jesus Christ had hallucinations.

    Another modern theory invented by skeptical scholars and scoffers, is that all the people who claimed to see Christ raised from the dead and alive, were hallucinating. Lee Strobel, a former atheist, lawyer and legal counsel for the Chicago Tribune, did his own research about this and went to an expert psychologist, who specialized in hallucinations. Strobel was excited about finding evidence that would contradict the Bible, since he was an atheist and intended to prove the Christian faith wrong. So he told the doctor: “Doc, from your experience, wouldn’t you agree with me, that the disciples of Jesus and other people who claimed to have seen him alive after three days, were having hallucinations?” The doctor replied: “I hate to disappoint you, Lee. Several people cannot have the exact same hallucination, at the same time. It’s never been recorded in the history of medicine”. Strobel was disappointed. After two years of research and investigations, he became a Christian believer.

    His testimony http://www.leestrobel.com

    There’s another interesting aspect to the story. In all the four Gospels, it is recorded that the first ones who saw Jesus after God raised him from the dead and he walked out of the grave, were women. In ancient times, especially in the culture of Israel, women did not have credibility when it came to testimonies. Their testimony in a court of law was not even accepted many times, and even when it was, it did not have the same weight like that of men. Since the testimony of women was not taken seriously, why would the authors of the Gospels write that women were the first to see Jesus alive?

    If they really wanted to invent the story of the Resurrection, they would have said in the Gospels that Peter or John discovered the empty tomb and saw Jesus alive first. Peter and John were some of the disciples and they were men, so they would have had far more credibility. :)

    Yet, why did they say the women discovered the empty tomb and saw Jesus alive before everybody else? Because that’s how it happened.

    “But these things are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you might have life through His Name”. (Gospel of John 20:31)
     
  4. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How did something that transpired 2000 years ago qualify as current events? You can't even call it "retro" or "vintage"...we're talking "ancient" events.
     
  5. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know you feel you are being ostracized and relegated by being forced into the religion section with this, but this is a political forum, not a religious forum.. Therefore the main sections are for political issues.

    Incidentally, I am both a believer and follower of Christ, and still think the thread should be moved.

    One thing I don't understand is, when other people say he sacrificed himself and died for our sins. You hear this in church all the time. Yet he has risen, and is in heaven right now.. In fact he is meant to return. So he didn't die, he ascended to heaven and is living it up. So I'm not following where this "sacrifice" is, well in physical pain yes, but his life itself then certainly not.
     
  6. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not about feeling ostracized. I don't, not one bit. As for this being a political forum, there was politics involved in the way the religious leaders tried to cover up the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is a political aspect to the story.

    I think you and others have the wrong understanding about religion and what it means. That's because of the way the Left has redefined things for all of society, for many decades. They redefined the meaning of government, freedom, religion, the family, almost everything. And if you go by their distorted definitions, you are going to think like them.

    It's funny that the Founding Fathers didn't separate religion completely from politics, because they even had National Days of Prayer and Fasting declared by Presidents Washington and Adams. Benjamin Franklin supported having a National Day of Prayer and Fasting, although he was not very religious. Why do you think they don't tell you this in textbooks or in documentaries on television? It's part of American history.

    In regard to what you say about Jesus and his sacrifice, you contradict yourself. You say "he has arisen" but you claim he didn't die. In order to be raised or arisen, he had to die first. Yes, he did die. That's confirmed even by secular history. Some atheists deny it and Muslims deny it because of their crazy revisionist doctrines.

    As to why this is a current event or why does it have relevance today. Because since Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, then he is who he claimed to be, the Son of God. That means going against his teachings is going against God's teachings, and going against our best interest, it's self-destruction. Ask yourself: why do we want to hold our politicians accountable? Why are we angry when they are corrupt and don't respect the Constitution? Because we have a conscience that was influenced by the commandments of Jesus Christ, we have developed a sense of justice and morality over the centuries.

    You say you are a follower of Jesus Christ. How can you be a follower and not believe that he sacrificed himself for us? That's very strange, to say the least. :) Christians are people who believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and receive its value by repenting and getting a new start in life.
     
  7. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know, this thread was halfway interesting until blaming the "left" for everything became part of it.
     
  8. iJoeTime

    iJoeTime Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please note I speak for myself only, but the short answer No, it did not happen.

    Rising from the dead is a physical and scientific impossibility and the idea of Jesus's ressurection is the very predictable result of stories and myths being propogated, retold, exagerated over time.
     
  9. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That, and it's essentially a derivative of the story of Mithras.
     
  10. Truthist

    Truthist New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jesus of Nazareth probably did not exist.
     
  11. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then all the controversy and division within Judaism in the 1st century AD was over an imaginary man. LOL :) The Jewish religious leaders persecuted Jewish Christians over a myth. The Romans persecuted the Christians over a myth. It's amazing how "enlightened" atheists like you and others who posted their opinions in this thread can come up with stupid theories like this and still see themselves as logical and intelligent.

    "Rising from the dead is a physical and scientific impossibility".

    That's true, unless God is involved. Then it's no longer an impossibility. God is above and beyond scientific boundaries.

    As for blaming the liberal left, it's a fact that they redefined things and rewrote history books, especially the ones used in schools. Do some research and you'll see.

    Benjamin Franklin said in 1787 to the men gathered at the Constitutional Convention: "During our contest with Great Britain, we prayed every day and asked for Divine guidance. Is it possible that we have forgotten our powerful Friend and we are now under the impression that we can do without His assistance?"

    That's what you people are doing, along with most Europeans. You think we can have freedom, prosperity and civility without God and without Jesus Christ. Many secularized Westerners also mock morality and ridicule anything decent or traditional. They got that from the Left, the leftist liberals have mocked and attacked morality for decades now. And then you wonder why this country and the rest of the West is going down the drain??

    God has allowed the Western world to reap what it has sown for many decades. They rejected Him, and so He's forsaking them. That's why the West is in economic trouble, is led by mostly corrupt politicians, has many and terrible social problems and Islam is rising and preparing to take over. When a civilization destroys itself, another one takes over and replaces it, it's been observed throughout history.

    That, and it's essentially a derivative of the story of Mithras.

    This anecdote about Mithras is very popular among secularists, the new age crowd and agnostic liberals. The only problem with this, is that Mithras was not born of a virgin, he didn't die and rise again and he didn't have 12 disciples. That's what you've been told, but that's false. In the original story, not hearsay from atheists, Mithras was born or came out of a rock. He had only two or three disciples and he didn't die for the sins of humanity. The idea of God coming to earth as a Redeemer to pay for the wrongdoing of his creatures, does not exist in any religion, in any culture. It's original to the New Testament.
     
  12. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Gospels were written during and after the revolt which resulted in the destruction of Judea and the sacking of Jerusalem. The Jesus character incorporates the three main leaders of the revolt into a religious story instead of a failed politcal story. It's about the hope that the Jews would rise again to their mythical former glory.

    Do you really think that countless zombies popped out of their graves and went to visit their living buddies in Jerusalem? I'm sure that event would have made the news even if Jesus's resurrection didn't.
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if the man did exist, no one knew him by that name


    .
     
  14. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not necessarily true. Paul built a whole religion based on the Jesus character. And there are several Jesus characters by that name in the Old Testament. It might be true that no one ever saw Jesus. Paul and the Gospel writers never saw him.

    Sherlock Holmes and Darth Vader?
     
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am saying his name would not of been "Jesus" as that is a translation of his real name that some liked better then the old name, so it stuck

    .
     
  16. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee - that was simple.
     
  17. manchmal

    manchmal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The Romans were very good at crucifying people long before they crucified Jesus. Not only did they nail him on the cross and leave him up there all day, they took the extra step of stabbing him in the side with a spear, just to make sure. Roman centurions who were in charge of this kind of thing knew that if they screwed up, they would be executed next. It is almost completely certain that Jesus was dead when they pulled the nails out and dragged him away.

    Nobody is going to convince anybody else that the Christ of God was Jesus of Nazareth except by faith. Yeah a lot of you think that's crap, but look at how easily you trust everything in your life in "faith" in the US Dollar. It is not backed up by gold or silver or anything that has real value. Dollars are nothing but pieces of paper no matter whether they are one dollar bills or hundred dollars bills. People are willing to take these pieces of paper in exchange for all their lives and their labor, and they trust in it to buy everything they have. Faith, you either have it or you don't. I believe that the Christ of God was Jesus of Nazareth. My sins are wiped away and I will never be reincarnated back here in this physical form. I encourage everyone to believe but fewer and fewer of you do. Faith, you either have it or you don't. Have a great day!
     
  18. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    probably? More like 100% sure.

    Where are the writings or jesus while he was alive?

    No records of him by any culture, historian, writers, etc while he was alive.
     
  19. randlepatrickmcmurphy

    randlepatrickmcmurphy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [QUOTE"Rising from the dead is a physical and scientific impossibility".

    That's true, unless God is involved. Then it's no longer an impossibility. God is above and beyond scientific boundaries.
    ][/QUOTE]

    It's just these kinds of convenient non-sensical explanations that makes people laugh at religion.
     
  20. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You probably got that from some revisionist documentary on National Geographic. To say that Jesus incorporates the three main leaders of the failed revolt shows very little knowledge of history on your part. Actually, it's not you, it's the "scholars" who came up with that stuff, you just copied their reasoning. They either know very little history or they are twisting the facts.

    Jesus didn't preach Jewish nationalist glory. He did care about Israel and knew that they would be blessed by God again, but he was on a different mission.

    At least two of the Gospels, Matthew and Mark, were written before the destruction of the Temple. Around 50 to 60 AD.
    If it wasn't so, then how come Christian communities by the time Paul was converted and preached, already had some of the Gospels and read them?

    Also, even if it was only an oral tradition in the first two or three decades, it takes much longer than that for a legend to become a legend. Many people who were around during the time of Jesus, were still around thirty and forty years later, especially the younger ones, so they would have known if he existed or not. And if he didn't exist, they would have laughed at the preaching of the disciples and there would have been zero believers. Yet, historical evidence shows that there were many Jewish Christians at that time, and even Gentile Christians.

    And last but not least, your explanation doesn't address the issue of the separation that took place between rabbinical Judaism and Messianic Judaism or what we know today as Christianity. How did that happen and why?

    About the people who walked out of their graves, it's probably referring to their resurrection in the spiritual realm. It's probably referring to people who died under the Old Testament law and were faithful to God, and their souls were revived and went into the heavenly city, "the holy city", it doesn't say the earthly Jerusalem. It's possible that until that time, they were in a place of waiting in the afterlife, where they waited for their deliverance. That's the place Jesus referred to as "Abraham's bossom" in one of his parables. They were not in heaven yet, since the atonement for them as well as for us, wasn't accomplished yet. That probably happened at the same time when Jesus was resurrected.
     
  21. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then how come many contemporaries of the time of Jesus, who would have known if he didn't exist, didn't reject the whole story? Where did the Jewish Christians come from, before the destruction of the Temple? They were a distinct community in Israel and were a couple of thousand.

    They knew he existed, because they saw him and heard him talk. What many of those people rejected, was his claims to
    deity, not his existence. The scribes and Pharisees didn't deny his miracles. They just didn't want to acknowledge as being the Christ sent by God. It's funny because atheists two thousand years later deny things that even the enemies of Jesus didn't deny! :)

    It takes much longer than that for a legend to become a legend. Many people who were around during the time of Jesus, were still around thirty and forty years later, especially the younger ones, so they would have known if he existed or not. And if he didn't exist, they would have not listened to the preaching of the disciples and there would have been zero believers. Yet, historical evidence shows that there were many Jewish Christians at that time, and even Gentile Christians.
     
  22. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's not necessarily true. Paul built a whole religion based on the Jesus character. And there are several Jesus characters by that name in the Old Testament. It might be true that no one ever saw Jesus. Paul and the Gospel writers never saw him.

    Sherlock Holmes and Darth Vader?


    Then how come many contemporaries from the time of Jesus, who would have known if he didn't exist, didn't reject the whole story? Where did the Jewish Christians come from, before the destruction of the Temple? They were a distinct community in Israel and were a couple of thousand.

    They knew he existed, because they saw him and heard him talk. What many of those people rejected, was his claim to
    deity, not his existence. The scribes and Pharisees didn't deny his miracles. They just didn't want to acknowledge as being the Christ sent by God. It's funny because atheists two thousand years later deny things that even the enemies of Jesus didn't deny! :)

    It takes much longer than that for a legend to become a legend. Many people who were around during the time of Jesus, were still around thirty and forty years later, especially the younger ones, so they would have known if he existed or not. And if he didn't exist, they would have not listened to the preaching of the disciples and there would have been zero believers. Yet, historical evidence shows that there were many Jewish Christians at that time, and even Gentile Christians.
     
  23. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,666
    Likes Received:
    26,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, this theory is quite plausible and it does have some credible support. If I recall correctly, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Will Durant explored it in his book Caesar and Christ.

    There are a few things that the people who oppose this theory failed to mention in their rebuttal. The first thing is the short time Jesus reportedly spent on the cross - ordinarily, people who were crucified spent significantly more time on their crosses, or what have you, before they expired. Secondly, we don't hear any mention of the possibility that the Romans may have been bribed by Jesus' wealthy friends. Given Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus, said bribery is not beyond the realm of possibility.

    It's an interesting theory. Whether or not it is true is anyone's guess - none of us were present at Jesus' execution...
     
  24. independent american

    independent american New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll tell you why those who laugh at religion should laugh at themselves for being closed minded. It’s because atheists and liberals in general have an attitude of intellectual superiority. They act as if they are smart and rational just because they don’t believe in God, and they consider other people stupid and ignorant, just because they do believe in God. “We’re intelligent because we know all that stuff about God and Jesus is mythology, and you’re stupid because you believe it”. That’s their monologue, in a nutshell. They are not capable of supporting their views with heavy duty historical and intellectual arguments, all they have is some stereotypes and theories they get from revisionist documentaries on television or books. Their theories are just simple-minded arguments sometimes fueled by hatred against God himself, and prejudice they have about faith in God. And yes, the theory that Jesus didn’t exist historically, is stupid.
     
  25. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,745
    Likes Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No... the Old Testament nor the new Testament had the name Jesus.

    The letter J didn't even exist until the 17th century. Ioseus was a Hellinization of the Greek Ἰησοῦς because it sounded similar to the Hebrew/Aramaic name , which in English would have been Yehoshua, by the council of Nicea during the conversion push by Constantine the I. His last "name", Christos, was not his name either, but title. It means "anointed one", a transliteration of the Hebrew Mashiach, as anointed = messiah. In those times... people didn't bathe very regularly, and borrowing from pagan rituals, covering ones self in perfumed oils ritually was concidered holy (which is what annoint means). Cleanliness is close to Godliness and all that... so the Messiah would just always be oily, and therefor clean and holy... you really have to understand ancient Hebrew rituals and their importance to really get that. In hebrew His name would have been Yahoshua. Yahoshua Bin Yoseph. In modern English... Joshua, son of Joseph.
    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=2424
     

Share This Page