Why Jesus was not the Messiah

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest

Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.

This is also a response to your previous statement. First of all there are only 35 years between Jesus's life and the time the New Testiment was finished
Second the Gospels are not supposed to be in chronological order. They are different people's perspectives of the various events in Jesus's ministry

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The evidence is overwhelming
 

lol

Go ahead and laugh just don't respond until you've actually studied the evidence.

Quote from: The Communist on October 04, 2007, 11:58:21 AM

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest

Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.

This is also a response to your previous statement. First of all there are only 35 years between Jesus's life and the time the New Testiment was finished
Second the Gospels are not supposed to be in chronological order. They are different people's perspectives of the various events in Jesus's ministry

It's not that it doesn't tell the story in chronological order.  How did you even interpret it that way?  Anybody can see that each Gospel begins roughly with his birth, and ends roughly with his death.  It's that there are contradictions in the events themselves between the Gospels.

Quote from: The Yattering on October 03, 2007, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The evidence is overwhelming
 

lol

Go ahead and laugh just don't respond until you've actually studied the evidence.

Yeah, you have no idea how much I've studied the evidence.  This has been a topic of fascination to me for almost two decades.  I know what I'm talking about.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 04, 2007, 06:20:28 PM

Quote from: The Yattering on October 03, 2007, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The evidence is overwhelming
 

lol

Go ahead and laugh just don't respond until you've actually studied the evidence.

Yeah, you have no idea how much I've studied the evidence.  This has been a topic of fascination to me for almost two decades.  I know what I'm talking about.

Which side of the conflict have you been studying?

All sides.  I never look at one side of an argument before forming a real opinion.

All sides.  I never look at one side of an argument before forming a real opinion.

That is good, did you look at both sides before you used the mythographical argument against Christ's historicity(I myself am not sure if thats a word, I am sure it is)?

   Of course.  Getting at anything? 

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

Easy example;

Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born.  Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.

Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations.  That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago.  How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to?  Why would you have to go there?  How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out?  Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?

The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament.  If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 02, 2007, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

Easy example;

Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born.  Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.

Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations.  That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago.  How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to?  Why would you have to go there?  How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out?  Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?

The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament.  If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.

Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.

Your last statement shows that you generalize and are a bigot. You assume that all religous people are dishonest, superstitious, and harmful. Your prejudice against those who hold religous convictions ooses off of every article you produce on this forum practically.

yeah Beastie Boy just doesn't like religious people....because he's a angry young man!

Quote from: beast on October 05, 2007, 12:49:50 AM

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 02, 2007, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

Easy example;

Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born.  Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.

Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations.  That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago.  How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to?  Why would you have to go there?  How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out?  Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?

The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament.  If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.

Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.

Your last statement shows that you generalize and are a bigot. You assume that all religous people are dishonest, superstitious, and harmful. Your prejudice against those who hold religous convictions ooses off of every article you produce on this forum practically.

Er. dude;

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Luke 2:2.

Oh wait, I know more about what the bible says than a religious person. LOLOLOLOL!

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 05, 2007, 09:11:53 AM

Quote from: beast on October 05, 2007, 12:49:50 AM

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 02, 2007, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

Easy example;

Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born.  Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.

Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations.  That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago.  How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to?  Why would you have to go there?  How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out?  Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?

The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament.  If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.

Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.

Your last statement shows that you generalize and are a bigot. You assume that all religous people are dishonest, superstitious, and harmful. Your prejudice against those who hold religous convictions ooses off of every article you produce on this forum practically.

Er. dude;

Quote from: King James Bible

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Luke 2:2.

Oh wait, I know more about what the bible says than a religious person. LOLOLOLOL!

THanks I was looking for that verse. But if you noticed it happned while Quarinius was governor of Syria, other then that Quarinius doesn't have anything to do with it.

Sure, but Quarinius was governor after Jesus was supposedly born.  Which means that the census must have been carried out after he was born.

You haven't addressed any of the other points about the census either.

40 great etc. grandparents; which ones birthplace do you go to?  Why didn't the census get mentioned in any historical accounts from the time?  Who produced food when everybody had to move?

Sure, but Quarinius was governor after Jesus was supposedly born.  Which means that the census must have been carried out after he was born.

You haven't addressed any of the other points about the census either.

40 great etc. grandparents; which ones birthplace do you go to?  Why didn't the census get mentioned in any historical accounts from the time?  Who produced food when everybody had to move?

of course it happened after he was born. The census did not take place the very day they arived in Bethlehem.

Sorry, you misunderstand.  I don't mean that Quarinius was governor a few days after Jesus was born.  He wasn't governor for years after Jesus was born.

Are you now claiming that for this census people had to permanently move to the birth place of one of their 40 great great etc. grandparents?  Or they had to move there for 10 years before being able to go home?

Sorry, you misunderstand.  I don't mean that Quarinius was governor a few days after Jesus was born.  He wasn't governor for years after Jesus was born.

Are you now claiming that for this census people had to permanently move to the birth place of one of their 40 great great etc. grandparents?  Or they had to move there for 10 years before being able to go home?

It could mean a different Quarinius, I'll research that

I still think this was a hilarious comic.   

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Gospel according to Supply Side Jesus.