The Jews did not kill Jesus. Tards..
The sin of Mankind did.

didn't anyone go to Sunday school??

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX The Jews did not kill Jesus. Tards.. The sin of Mankind did. didn't anyone go to Sunday school??

Mel Gibson doesn't seem to agree.





.....and i went to CCD on thursday nights. Damn Catholic parents!!!

Also Renegade you for some reason decided to leave out the fact that Josephus wrote the Jewish Antiquities as well. There are quite a few more references in there to the big Christian suspects (John The Baptist, James and Jesus). It's interesting to note that John The Baptist and his lot (He was seen as the first leader by Romans) were feared because of the rebellion they might incite.

Actually, God the Father killed Jesus, since Jesus was sent to earth specifically to die for our sins. The Jews just did what God the Father really wanted.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Mel Gibson doesn't seem to agree. .....and i went to CCD on thursday nights. Damn Catholic parents!!!

@ Mel Gibson comment.

Fuck man I was forced to go to CCD too... Tuesday nights for like 5 years. All I did was try to scheme on girls in my class. Funny memories from those days. When I was in high school, one of my former CCD teachers' daughters was in some of my classes. She was smoking hot. Then we found out her dad got arrested for fooling around with some 16 year old girl. I always wondered about the guy too; he was one of those jesus nuts who always had that prozac smile on his face like he was shitting rainbows every day. Those are the ones who are always hiding something sinister.

/CCD rant

quote:

Originally posted by Alex So no, I don't see the accounts of Jesus as problematic because I don't doubt the primary sources quite so strongly as others.

But then how do you explain the discrepancies and outright contradictions? At least some of the material in the gospels must be untrustworthy, what process do you use to distinguish the history from the embellishments?

quote:

While Paul was an important figure, he didn't write the Gospels, which is where your PR statement would come from I guess because those accounts of Jesus are the ones we base our model of him off of today.

Modern Christianity - sadly - is based far more on the teahings of Paul than the teachings of Jesus. Paul seems to be quite unfamiliar with the details of Jesus' life or with his teachings (I think he only quotes Jesus once in the whole of his epistles - the last supper communion thing in 1 Cor) and explicitly says that he is only interested in the crucified / resurrected Christ (1 Cor 2:2 etc.). He believed that he was the final apostle and receiving direct revelation from the resurrected spirit of Christ, whihc basically gave him carte blanche to invent theology on the spot. That's the way Christianity became a cult centered around the concept of personal salvation, rather than a socio-theological movement against the evils of the world (and the coming apocolypse) as Jesus had originally intended.

quote:

Also, some would consider the disagreements among the Gospel authors, as well as Paul, Peter, James etc to be more evidence that if this were some giant con or conspiracy (like some believe) wouldn't they have gotten the fine details right?

I agree, and I think the argument that Paul describes having with Peter (Gal 2:11) is pretty illuminating. Christianity would have been very different if Peter and the law-based Christian community had won out over Paul and his soteriology. We wouldn't have any right-wing Evangelicals for one...

quote:

If we look at Paul's biography a bit, I call into doubt very seriously that he was just Jesus' PR guy and that his motives were just to convince a whole bunch of people of this elaborate lie I don't think he would have sent quite so many letters to the Corinthians or Ephesians had he not cared what they were preaching and teaching in Jesus' name.

Well I was being a bit facetious there. My point was that Paul was extremely effective at selling Christianity to a wide (gentile) audience. Without Paul, Christianity may have remained a fringe Jewish cult that would have been swallawed up - along with all the other Jewish cults - by the rise of Talmudic Judaism in the 2nd century.

Well Renegade we've found some common ground.

I am a Roman Catholic and I believe even we put too much focus on Paul. On the other hand we tend to have a far more rounded base of beliefs from the 3 major prophets of the old testament (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial) to Jesus, James, Paul, Peter etc.

The problem is that the Church was so repressive in it's teachings of the Bible and actually went into self-defense mode when all the protestant sects began spreading like wildfire. (Basically criticizing private interpretation, the response? The overwhelming focus on the Bible by protestants).

Jesus was the one that wanted the continuation of his word being spread, Paul wanted the same and laid down the structure for the Church which got blown way out of proportion and has been consistently abused over the years. Protestants don't help things either

I do believe that the Roman Catholic church is changing it's tune, and has done so steadily since Vatican II. It's partly my connection to the Church talking, which is an obvious bias, but there is now a much bigger focus on the spiritual as well as the scripture in the Catholic church. Those two things along with the oral and church tradition make for a well rounded faith that can be both strong and more reasonable. Up until about 100 years ago spirituality was almost frowned upon as well, reserved for those living a monastic life, luckily things are changing though. Hopefully for the better.