Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (repentance, about)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you were a bible-believing Christian, Mike. No Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian would ever admit Krishna is real.
I'm Catholic, not a fundamentalist; but the existence of demons is very much in line with Biblical teaching. Whether there is actually a demon named "Krishna" or not, I don't pretend to know. But demon worship is real.
As I've quoted from the Psalms many times, "the gods of the Gentiles are devils."
Here's why I and others who are secular Bible scholars ask for secular historians:
I've stated before but I'll state again: secular Bible historians recognize the New Testament to be theological statements of faith contained within historical settings. They do not consider the gospels to be strictly historic documents:
"First, scholars explain that the gospels were created as documents of faith, not documents of history. They were not written as accurate historical biographies of the human Jesus who lived and died in the first century of the Common Era (CE). The gospels are more a record of the early church’s beliefs about Jesus than a true historical record of what Jesus actually said and did. They were written to present the message of the early church—its teaching and preaching about Jesus—and to give an overview of Jesus’ life and death to people who already believed that Jesus was the son of God and savior of the world.
Of course; because they reject claims of the supernatural by default since they can't be empirically confirmed. This twofold error (empiricism/naturalism) is the guiding principle in virtually all modern scholarship.
Of course; because they reject claims of the supernatural by default since they can't be empirically confirmed. This twofold error (empiricism/naturalism) is the guiding principle in virtually all modern scholarship.
I'll go with the testimony of the Church
Mike, you're getting to be as outlandish as Mink in your twisting of logic to support your incredibly weak position. Again just for the record, the charge is that the ONLY historical reference to Jesus in the 1st century has been tampered with ranging from some to nearly all of the passage and in degrees ranging from mild to outrageously, and these charges are supported in total by 48 Biblical scholars against 4 who say the passage hasn't been tampered with. And you're going to side with the 4 against the 48 because the 4 say something that aligns with your personal beliefs about Jesus while the 48 say something that doesn't align with your personal beliefs about Jesus! Would that be a pretty fair assessment of your position?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 11-21-2022 at 08:55 PM..
I want people to notice that when I make a simple request to Gldn:
Tell us the name of a single secular historian who mentions the name "Jesus of Nazareth" in the 1st century that isn't mired in controversy
he just dances around the question with lots of unrelated nonsense just like his other two compadres, Thoreau and BaptistFundie. Can you imagine, people? I've asked THREE Christians---count 'em, THREE to give one simple secular historical reference to Jesus that might at least demonstrate he was real
And not a single one of them can do it!
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
I'd have better luck getting a legitimate reply out of the Three Stooges.
What you fail to notice, is how rude and nasty your response is.
Calling people "stooges" and "pathetic".
This is indicative of the level you work on.
Where you fail from the get-go...is thinking the question you ask is in any way meaningful.
It's not. And what is truly "pathetic" is that you think it is.
Here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_186.cfm
Many explain this.
Jesus ended up being the most epic, prolific, and influential person to ever live in the history of the world. So much so...they even mark the date off of Him.
And you? You, who question him? What's your status?
I see Paul mentioned twice. I see no mention of Peter. I see no apostles by name. I see no "12 apostles" I see a few mentions of "the apostles".
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Peter and Paul named as apostles (with Paul dying in Spain, not Rome).
The Bible is metaphorical and allegorical...you argue against it from a literal basis, ...
Yes, what a surprise, responding to Christians arguing it is literally historical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Answer this question: Why is it going to be "2023"?
Because a Christian monk thought the Bible was literally historical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you were a bible-believing Christian, Mike. No Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian would ever admit Krishna is real.
