Uh...be careful what you wish for. The fact is, every "person" you see is a mask over Christ, who is equal to God. Whatsoever you do to the least of them, you do to me, er, Christ. As Christ yourself, you have the power to drag all of your brothers into hell with you, to bid for your prayers and subserviance. Have mercy on them. Release the Son of God from your wishes and give him salvation instead. The world is waiting for you to come to your senses, and bring them good news. You've really only got one God. The idea that begets this world splits him into billions of unrecognizable pieces. You made this world. How do you like your options? Jesus
But being divine, all things are know to you...so do a miracle and give me the exact opening price. Praise the Lord!
OK, you got me... I'm actually Satan's younger bother, hunting for the souls of greedy, self centered investors.
That is a valid request Jem. You want me to cite sources that Jesus is a figment of Paul's imagination. But I must question as to why you couldn't find these sources yourself. We are afterall both on the Internet, and those sources are just a few keystrokes away from both of us. Why can't you move your little fingers to get to those sources if that is what you are looking for? The early Christians were all Jews. A Jew claiming divinity would have been burned at the steak in a manner of speaking, but in reality possibly stoned to death by some zealots 2,000 years ago or ostracized as a mad man. That is why Judaism originated in the first place. A man claiming to be God was pure paganism. Also, based on metaphysical principles and how God defines himself in the Torah it is impossible that there is any physicality to God. He can not be born because that would mean that he is changing states, and a Perfect Being can not move from one perfection to another. That is an impossibility. There is only one final state of perfection that defines the Divinity. Similarly, he can not die because again that would imply that He is changing states. Jesus if you believe that he existed was like any other human being. He was born and he died so there is no way that he can fulfill the characteristics of God as defined in the Torah. All of this stuff about Jesus being divine or part of the Trinity comes from paganism, and since Christianity is in effect an amalgamation of Judaism and paganism there is nothing really surprising about that. I already explained that Paul accepted non-Jews as converts to his version of Judaism without circumcision, and as Christianity became the dominant religion it accepted many pagan customs and beliefs so it would be palatable to the many different people that it wanted to absorb. The idea of a man god which you have with Jesus was nothing new. Again it goes way back to various forms of paganism in antiquity. There were holy virgins that were assigned or dedicated to various gods in antiquity. Now and then there were problems with these holy virgins. One of them became pregnant. How is that possible? They were holy. No man was suppossed to come near them. Well, that could mean only one thing. The god that they were dedicated to impregnated them, and their child was a god or half god. This is pure speculation, but I suspect that this idea of gods impregnating humans got started with a high priest that tried to save his daughter from certain death if it was found out that she had a secret lover. Ok Jem, I answered some of your questions, but I am sure this is not what you wanted to hear. You accept Jesus and the New Testament on the basis of blind faith just like a Moslem accepts the Quran and Mohammed as the greatest of prophets on the basis of blind faith. Why don't you want to take a look at the sources that question whether Jesus existed in the first place, and similarly why doesn't your Moslem friend want to question whether Mohammed was really a prophet and holy man? Because both of you have accepted your belief system on the basis of blind faith, and asking these questions would make you heretics, and that would mean based on your beliefs systems that you just bought yourself a box seat in hell for eternity. This is a debate forum Jem. I may be good a debater, but I am not that good. I can not argue with dogmatists whether they are religious or secular or on the right or on the left. You are not searching for the truth. You and your ilk know the truth already. What do you want from me -- to validate your belief system which you accepted on the basis of blind faith? Good luck, I'll do that when hell freezes over. In the next post I'll list some sources for honest truth seekers as to why I believe Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination, and point you to a treasure trove on this subject.
LYING FOR THE CHURCH The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves. Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32). The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence. Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts. Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts. Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay. Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus. Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay. As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more. For more information on this fascinating subject see http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Your scholarly work is on par for a 3rd grader with crayons and those who are convinced that Area 51 still holds extraterrestrial secrets.
Just a note on the above: When Rcanfiel (Now "TraderZones", 'cause he was banned) does the whole foot-stomping, red faced, childish rant routine such as the above, it doesn't mean that you're really wrong -- if he thought that he might actually attempt to engage you with contrary factual evidence. It just means he doesn't like what you said. There's a lot of the real world that Rcan doesn't like -- don't confuse him with facts. JB
Full on character assassination attempt, par for the Turok course... This is the game played by those who cannot defeat the argument, they try to defeat the man... Uhhh, and no, his ad hominem doesn't make yours that follows right or logically induced... Obviously, being the master of self induced "hands on" gratification, you without a doubt attempt to divert others away from this simple and plain truth...