Where did Christ go?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you falsely accuse me of using a red herring while using a red herring yourself. we are not discussing holocaust history. that's a red herring you just introduced.


[quote] 2.) Your second red herring is just your axe to grind about "peace loving Christians". This is just s deflection. I won't bother being deflected trying to defend that Christians ions.

that would explain why no single contemporary historian mentioned jesus.

that would explain why no single contemporary historian mentioned jesus.

If using strickly historians during the 30 to 50 years of a man's supposed birth is your rule then -

What contemporary historian mentioned Confucius ?

What contemporary historian mentioned Socrates ?

If you can name none then you have to be fair and propose that neither of these men existed as well.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] There probably weren't many people who did doubt the existence of Jesus 300+ years ago, and those that did weren't going to be stupid enough to let anyone know, let alone write anything down. Look at the trouble Galileo got into for daring to suggest a heliocentric view of our solar system and let's not forget Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake for o ...[text shortened]... on and appeals to emotion will not strengthen your conspiracy theory to cover 20 centries .

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, i'm not claiming Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I think he probably did, but what he did say or do is on dubious ground.

I entered this debate to point out to you why i think that nobody doubted Jesus existed 300 years ago ie. the blasphemy laws which would have meant them meeting a grizzly end.

Originally posted by jaywill

that would explain why no single contemporary historian mentioned jesus.

If using strickly historians during the 30 to 50 years of a man's supposed birth is your rule then -

What contemporary historian mentioned Confucius ?

What contemporary historian mentioned Socrates ?

If you can name none then you have to be fair and propose that neither of these men existed as well.

If you come back and mentioned for example a pupil of Confucius or a pupil of Socrates THEN I will propose a pupil of Jesus as well - Paul.

Then you can dance around why Paul has to be excluded as a propogandist but not the disciples of Socrates or the disciples of Confucius.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, i'm not claiming Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I think he probably did, but what he did say or do is on dubious ground.

I entered this debate to point out to you why i think that nobody doubted Jesus existed 300 years ago ie. the blasphemy laws which would have meant them meeting a grizzly end.

So western civilization divided up history into "Before Christ" - B.C. and "In The Year of Our Lord" - A.D. based on a fictional character ?

You must REALLY be bothered by the things the Gospels say Jesus said.

Originally posted by jaywill
So western civilization divided up history into [b]"Before Christ" - B.C. and "In The Year of Our Lord" - A.D. based on a fictional character ?

You must REALLY be bothered by the things the Gospels say Jesus said.[/b]

Yes, he is bothered by the prospect that he is heading straight for the gates of Hell.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, he is bothered by the prospect that he is heading straight for the gates of Hell.

I believe in going HONESTLY to God in prayer, in conversation, and pouring out your heart to Him.

I would go to some field where no one else could hear me speak, and pour out my complaint before God - "I don't LIKE this or that in the Bible ...".

I think an honest prayer with God He hears and moves to win you over to Himself. I think. Honesty before God in pouring out your heart's thoughts is effective.

Originally posted by jaywill

you falsely accuse me of using a red herring while using a red herring yourself. we are not discussing holocaust history. that's a red herring you just introduced.

A brief comparison is pertinent and should be allowed.
Otherwise everything that does not agree with your argument you may dismiss with "we are not discussing that".

bringing up unrelated events is not something that contests my arguments concerning the historicity of jesus. i will not expand the discussion to refute false or incorrect claims you've made about other alleged historical events. to do so would just spiral this discussion to unmaintainable levels, so please stay focused on the historicity of jesus.

You are just relying on a mass ad-hom.

it is only important to note that there were conflicting ideas about the nature of jesus right from the very beginning concerning such questions as; was he man/god, was he physical/imaginary, and so on. these are not ad hominem, these are events very damaging to your case.

Claiming Jesus never existed is a recent complaint. What was mostly argued by skeptics in the past is that Jesus did not rise from the dead or was born a virgin, or was Son of God.

YouTube&feature=related

or that he was a non-physical illusion.

[quote] i have not made that argument. the argument i have made is that there is no historical evidence for the existence of jesus. this argument remains uncontested.

YouTube&feature=related[/quote]

refuted in a prior posting. my argument remains uncontested.

As I said - only a rather recent argument that Jesus never existed.

i would like to take a moment to inform you that this is a fallacy. how new or old an argument is does not invalidate the argument.

You never gave me a list of Jesus denyers on a historical bases. what you gave me was that they were probably all murdered because, you know, Christians do bad things.

i gave you a name of a group and a name of a bishop who thought jesus was imaginary. the bishop was excommunicated and the group was eventually wiped out by the christians. but that they existed is not in question. it is only important to understand that the debate was a very early one.

That's good enough for this post. And I am pretty sure that the criteria you are setting for the historicity of Jesus you do not use for other notable figures of the ancient world.

You're probably selectively critical.

i warned you about making false assumptions before, but apparently you are fixated on this idea. let it be known that such rote declarations do not help your case.

Originally posted by jaywill
So western civilization divided up history into [b]"Before Christ" - B.C. and "In The Year of Our Lord" - A.D. based on a fictional character ?

You must REALLY be bothered by the things the Gospels say Jesus said.[/b]

and some of the months and weekdays are named after other mythical gods. so what's your point?

Originally posted by jaywill

that would explain why no single contemporary historian mentioned jesus.

If using strickly historians during the 30 to 50 years of a man's supposed birth is your rule then -

What contemporary historian mentioned Confucius ?

What contemporary historian mentioned Socrates ?

If you can name none then you have to be fair and propose that neither of these men existed as well.

i have to be fair and say that i'm not discussing these other characters. but that's not why i'm replying to this post.

you said:
"If you can name none then you have to be fair and propose that neither of these men existed as well"

this statement does not make sense in the context of the discussion we've been having. to say that these men didn't exist "as well" implies that i have said someone didn't exist. i have not made any claims about someone not existing.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i have to be fair and say that i'm not discussing these other characters. but that's not why i'm replying to this post.

you said:
"If you can name none then you have to be fair and propose that neither of these men existed as well"

this statement does not make sense in the context of the discussion we've been having. to say that these men didn't ave said someone didn't exist. i have not made any claims about someone not existing.

All you need to know about where Christ has gone now is written in the Holy Bible.
To make it short for you. Christ is now in the third Heaven, where the paradise
of God is now located, complete with the tree of life. He is preparing mansions
for all his faithful servants and awaiting the time that the Father determines the
havest of souls is due. We Christians have the equavilent of Christ with us today
in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by jaywill
So western civilization divided up history into [b]"Before Christ" - B.C. and "In The Year of Our Lord" - A.D. based on a fictional character ?

You must REALLY be bothered by the things the Gospels say Jesus said.[/b]

Can you read?

i'm not claiming Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I think he probably did...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Can you read?

i'm not claiming Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I think he probably did...

As I understand what jaywill says, he thinks you must be bothered by something
that Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. Do you disagree strongly with
something Jesus is supposed to have said that causes all your doubt?

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I understand what jaywill says, he thinks you must be bothered by something
that Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. Do you disagree strongly with
something Jesus is supposed to have said that causes all your doubt?

I'm not 'bothered' by any of it. I doubt how accurate the story is seeing how the Gospels were penned decades after Jesus died.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not 'bothered' by any of it. I doubt how accurate the story is seeing how the Gospels were penned decades after Jesus died.

Two decades is not so long a time as histories go. We accept some mordern
histories as being fairly accurate that are written much later than that. However,
I will give you the fact that they did not have newspapers and magazines to
consult when writing their accounts. But in sone cases we have two or even
three of the gospel writers repeating the same or very close to the same stories
and quotations of what is said. And some are claiming to be eyewitnesses
which is not the case of many historians today.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
and some of the months and weekdays are named after other mythical gods. so what's your point?

and some of the months and weekdays are named after other mythical gods. so what's your point?

That's a point. So let's take the example of "Thor's Day" ie. Thursday. A considerable portion of the Western world uses a division of B.C. and A.D. related to Jesus and a custom of designating the 5th day as "Thor's Day".

I think this hommage to Thor may have begun around the 8th century. "Before Christ" (after A.D. had been in use already) I think came into popular use in the 6th century. I will check more on this.

Conceivably BOTH Thor and Christ could be totally fictional characters. That is conceded.

Let's say that the designation of a recuring day of the week is very significant. But also important, and possibly more so, is a dividing line separating MILLINNIA. If the two divices were wheels in a clock, the one concerning Christ would be the far bigger wheel.

I think a marker to divide TIME itself into Before Christ (I think started around 525 AD something) and Our Lord's Year from His incarnation as a man, ONWARD for perpetuity is a more dramatic milestone in human history.

So we have two ideas:

1.) Let's call every 5th day Thor's Day after the god Thor.

2.) Let's also divide history as time before Christ was incarnated and after His birth onward perpetualy through future time.

Both a pretty heavy commitments. I think the second is the heavier one, the more significant. But maybe not.

Neither custom proves either Thor or Christ was a real person. But I consider further.

It is history that the Roman Catholics assimilated pagan beliefs and customs from various religions in order to make the Christian Gospel, what THEY thought, would be more palatable.

Ie.
"Let's take Venus and now say she's Mary."
"Let's take the sun's birthday and now say it is Christ's birthday."
"Let's take the days of the week and name them after vaious pagan religious figures and gods."

"Let's subsume all these pagan beliefs UNDER the umbrella of Jesus Christ."

The above scheme is what happened. Jesus Christ (whether historical or not) was the assumed uniting concept utilized to make this mixture Gospel with pagan religion. This was the new paradigm of counting time.

It was not the other way around. It was not that Christ was used to enhance the reputation of the god Thor. Rather it was throwing in Thor into Christianity (wrongly in my opinion) to give the pagan converts (real or false) something familiar to encourage them to stay within the religious fold.

First they started with Christ and then latter added in something related to Thor as Christianity spread to the northern Scandanavia.

None of this proves the actual historicity of either figure. Perhaps BOTH were entirely fictional. But three things appear to me:

1.) The division of history according to the life of Christ is arguably the more significant marker.

2.) The designation of a day for Thor was concocted for the sake of a more dominating figure Christ.

3.) I would wager there are more serious historians who would argue for the historicity of Jesus Christ than would argue for that of Thor.

So when someone says "Yea, don't make a deal about B.C. and A.D. because we have "Thor's Day" every week" I think there is a comparison of sorts. But it is much weaker on one side.


Nothing in this post is meant to be an endorsement of all methods of Charlamagne used to spread Christianity to the Norse tribes. The point here is which person's historicity is taken more seriously since both were used as markers for time.