Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
And your reasons for thinking it is crap are ... ?
Just saying so doesn't make it so. History is written by the victorious, not necessarily the purveyors of literal truth.
Flavius Josephus, a non-religious Jew and pre-eminant historian of Roman rule in Israel, accounts for Jesus' existance. Also, I know of no contemporary that denied He lived.
That might not be "scientific" for you in that there's no known DNA remenants, but could such proof be shown of you after 2000 years?
**I don't think so! **
Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer; and when this is done, the same question shall be asked again next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject. Bishop Horne 1831
No I;m not..
The Roman Catholic church started when Constantine(Emperor of Rome) declared all of Rome including all its citizens would become "Christians".. and the only "religion" recognized would "Christian"..
Forced three things(actually more than 3 things) but I'll limit it three..
1) forced conversion of pagans...
2) need for a "priesthood", to control the rabble..
3) The first "christian" theocracy..
Totally eliminating the need for what made you a "Christian" before that..
VOLA!.. the Roman Catholic church.. The roman bishops were striving for accendacy(credibility) before that but the bishops in other places ignored them..
It happened.. totally researchable.. and answers why the Roman Catholic cult is rife with pagan celebrations and rites.. Cause they are NEEDED...
I'm personally a member of a cult with only one member..
Heck, I can start a cult too.. its easy.. its just God and Me..
And I'm not jealous of "his" relationships with others either..
After all "he's" God, what would he even NEED with a religion anyway..
Only psuedo-Gods even NEED religion.. to them its manditory for ANY crebility.
Thats why religions are invented, for Psuedo-Gods.. The real God don't need one...
the real God don't even HAVE a name (EXodus Ch 3)...
-OR- NEED ONE...
Well, whoever he was, he must have been quite a polyglot, and very well traveled also.
We have fragments of all these old texts in Latin, Greek, Coptic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and a couple other Mideastern ancient Syriac languages.
I've probably left out a few.
anyone can start a church, but getting your own emporer to back it up, now that takes some doin!
Pretty snitty remark, dude.
I cried more this weekend than a good many Catholics...
Another hammer to be worn out pounding on the anvil of God - The Bible.
Revisionist.
***And your reasons for thinking it is crap are ... ? **
Learning.
If I step in dog $#it I dont have to look at it and ask, "Is it bubble gum or chocolate?" And I don't have to stick my finger in it to find out.
The book you mentioned is CRAP.
Get wise! Get educated! Find a good library and do your own research of the Gnostics and other weird groups of that time.
Read Eusebius. Augustine. and other authors who had first hand knowlege of these groups. Go to a Bible book store and look for books opposing this crap you are fostering off on us.
Only one thing worse than the rabble starting their own religions..
And that is an Emperor starting a religion..
that he will KILL you for not following even more diligently than HE DOES JIMSELF..
Now that sucks..
Yeah those emperors can be tough
Read Eusebius. He traces the "Bishops" of Rome. Eusebius was a Bishop of a city near the Turkey/Syria border, near the coast. He also traces the Bishops of Alexander for a while and the Bishops of Jerusalem for a while be stops following them as well. The only consistent lineage he follows throughout is ROME. He points out a biological relationship to the Bishops of Jerusalem but notes the shift to non-jewish prelates and a period when the Bishop of Jerusalem was not even in Jerusalem but continued to use the name. It is clear the focus of this Eastern Bishop was the Bishop in Rome. Jerusalem was much closer and the Emperor was in Constantinople also closer than Rome but it is to Rome this Bishop looked. If all Bishops were equal in the early Church why does this not show in this early Church writer?
Whoa ! To be educated you must first investigate and research - why is it you think I'm "fostering off on you" anything other than a very provocative and prodigious amount of research ?
No one asked you to believe it; however if the research on which it is based is part of the known historical record, that cannot be changed even if you call it "weird". You can dispute the conclusions - but calling it crap and weird doesn't advance your cause, just shows that your opinion is based on name-calling.
I fail to see why you are so vehement in your attack. History is never pretty or neat. It is always messy and fraught with the possibility of misinterpretations because much documentation was never created or was lost over time.
Considering the Aramaic would be Yeshua (Joshua... fulfills an O.T. prophecy according to some interpretations), the Iesus of Greek would be closer to the actual sound of the name than the Latinized Jesus. It's worth noting that "Jesus" is as translated a word as the name Ivan is for John or Raymond is for Raimondo...
Christian religion developed over time.. It was not that way in the beginning.. The Christian church was NOT a religion.. Actually Christ came to make ALL religion obsolete, AND DID..
Religion was a "pagan" thing, still is..
Although so-called heresy's proliferated, "the Church" becoming a religion as an answer to them was an even worse malady.. as time has shown..
Like God could not pick his own leaders and guide the "church" himself.. <<- rhetorical question..
He did in the beginning, and still does.. I think..
Only apostates are drawn to an apostate church.. and their are many.. Its separating the goats from the sheep.. Everything is exactly the way its supposed to be.. You and I are exactly where we are supposed to be.. else we'd move..
The religions of the world are the winnowers...
The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons.. by their religions.. But a good son can be saved by crying out to god to be saved from that religion even within that relgion.. Religions are needed as winnowers. They winnow out the spiritually weak yet challenge the weak to get stronger.. till they don't even need that religion anymore.. pure genius I would say..
The genius of God is unearthly.. Is God cool or WHAT.?.
No, you don't have scientific proof. You have faith. There is a difference, is there not?
Your faith causes you to believe that what you read in the Bible is the gospel, as it were, despite the absence of scientific proof.
Absolutlely false. I can prove that Pompeii and Herculenium were destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. That happened 2000 years ago and unlike the claims made in the Bible, we have scientific proof that it happened.
For the record, I too, believe that an incarnation of God walked the Earth in the form of Jesus, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that what is described in the Bible is scientific proof of his divinity.
That's not how God works. His proof is very un-scientific and can only be found in the hearts of the faithful.
Of course I have "scientific" proof. Why would I have faith in something without evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.