Greggs replace Jesus with sausage roll

BrianW said:
Having said that, whoever devised this campaign is a plonker as it was bound to offend some people. Though we are rapidly approaching the point where anything offends someone, so maybe advertising will have to die.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. Great publicity for Greggs
 
urban genie said:
Things that are widely considered historically true about a man called Jesus at the time
There was a man called Jesus who was a Galilean Jew with known activities confined to Galilee and Judea.
He was baptized by John the Baptist.
He called disciples.
He had a controversy at the Temple andwas crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.
After his death his disciples continued.
Some of his disciples were persecuted.

No proof exits he was born in a barn, so no reason to get upset over such a thing.

Though it is an important part of 2 gospels out of 4 (and countless others unrecognised)

Lasty as the nativity is considered idolatry in strict christian reality only catholics should be showing it so that's 4 million people to offend in the UK, though if like me they are lapsed I expect most have better things to worry about
Click to expand...

Widely considered and historically true are completely different things. There are no actual records of anyone called Jesus being baptised, crucified or having disciples. Ignore any part of the bible as that was written from word of mouth. The Romans were meticulous record keepers but there is no mention of him. Anywhere.

What there is record of is Christianity.
 
Elbow beards said:
If your offended by comments taking the piss out off the Christian faith, don't read a thread entitled
'Greggs replace Jesus with sausage roll'
Click to expand...
Im
Elbow beards said:
If your offended by comments taking the piss out off the Christian faith, don't read a thread entitled
'Greggs replace Jesus with sausage roll'
Click to expand...
I’m shit at football so I thought I would emulate the other Jesus. A fisherman of men. Fucking hell it worked.

Take a gander at my post on page 4 of this thread mate ;)
 
BimboBob said:
Widely considered and historically true are completely different things. There are no actual records of anyone called Jesus being baptised, crucified or having disciples. Ignore any part of the bible as that was written from word of mouth. The Romans were meticulous record keepers but there is no mention of him. Anywhere.

What there is record of is Christianity.
Click to expand...


Yup no physical evidence is available, but Roman scholars documenting at the time mention a man named jesus crucified by the prefect pilate and jewish historical record show a man was baptised by a man named john the baptised man was also called jesus.

Most historians accept that these event are probably true while others believe that this indicates a man named jesus existed in galalie around that time and had or was part of a group.

the son of god, miracles and all that religius guff there is no evidence of except the bible, but jesus was about.

more than likely he was some political activist who in a time of messianic delusion was then held up as something more.
 
urban genie said:
Yup no physical evidence is available, but Roman scholars documenting at the time mention a man named jesus crucified by the prefect pilate and jewish historical record show a man was baptised by a man named john the baptised man was also called jesus.

Most historians accept that these event are probably true while others believe that this indicates a man named jesus existed in galalie around that time and had or was part of a group.

the son of god, miracles and all that religius guff there is no evidence of except the bible, but jesus was about.

more than likely he was some political activist who in a time of messianic delusion was then held up as something more.
Click to expand...
0f1729b0549e898d2377b6417b92a6ca0e1667850ef0e2124206479b2b29df84.jpg
 
urban genie said:
Yup no physical evidence is available, but Roman scholars documenting at the time mention a man named jesus crucified by the prefect pilate and jewish historical record show a man was baptised by a man named john the baptised man was also called jesus.

Most historians accept that these event are probably true while others believe that this indicates a man named jesus existed in galalie around that time and had or was part of a group.

the son of god, miracles and all that religius guff there is no evidence of except the bible, but jesus was about.

more than likely he was some political activist who in a time of messianic delusion was then held up as something more.
Click to expand...

Sounds all very Life of Brian. A popular name in those parts, not Jesus, but Joshua. There is no mention of the name Jesus in any Roman texts, records, books, scrolls, pieces of paper, parchments, shopping lists...

Jesus the name is a later edition.

There was probably hundred's of Joshua's or whatever the origin was being baptised around that time, some of them might even be members of a group and a few might have been crucified, I say a few, because there has only been 1 body found that had been crucified during Roman/ Jesus's time. 1. That's it. Crucifixion only appears to be used in the minds of the writers of the book.
 
BimboBob said:
Sounds all very Life of Brian. A popular name in those parts, not Jesus, but Joshua. There is no mention of the name Jesus in any Roman texts, records, books, scrolls, pieces of paper, parchments, shopping lists...

Jesus the name is a later edition.

There was probably hundred's of Joshua's or whatever the origin was being baptised around that time, some of them might even be members of a group and a few might have been crucified, I say a few, because there has only been 1 body found that had been crucified during Roman/ Jesus's time. 1. That's it. Crucifixion only appears to be used in the minds of the writers of the book.
Click to expand...
The calcified remains of a heel bone with a nail driven through it has been discovered, the victim is unknown.
Crucifixion was intended as a humiliation, as well as an agonising, prolonged death, the victims were usually
agitators against Roman authority, rather than common criminals.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
The calcified remains of a heel bone with a nail driven through it has been discovered, the victim is unknown.
Crucifixion was intended as a humiliation, as well as an agonising, prolonged death, the victims were usually
agitators against Roman authority, rather than common criminals.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But without any actual evidence, apart from one bone, it's very hard to prove they were doing this on a mass scale in the Holy Lands around this time. As with anything to do with the bible. No proof.
 
BimboBob said:
Indeed. But without any actual evidence, apart from one bone, it's very hard to prove they were doing this on a mass scale in the Holy Lands around this time. As with anything to do with the bible. No proof.
Click to expand...

The history of the era should not be dismissed because of the bible which is a work of fiction.

Roman were crucifying people from 3rd century BC until constantine outlawed it.

Most schollars attest the lack of evidence to the fact that those executed were political prisoners or criminals and would be throw. into rivers or ditches so the bones would be scattered, the nails would be valuable as a metal and reused and that most crucifictions would habe been on trees or walls and those on closes the would would have rotted by now.

Spartacus and his uprising were crucified, crucifixtion were used in the roman civil wars so it is not unexpected that it was used in judea.

Flavia Jesephus is attested by historians to have documented john the baptist baptising a man named jesus who was a wise teacher.
It also claims in the wriitngs of titus 70AD that a man called the wise king who was a political prisoner and teacher was executed by pilot.

Most historia. agree both reference the man then used in the bible.

I don't believe the bible tales, but I can believe a man may have exsited who was probably a political activist who protested the corruption of the then roman controled jewish state and was executed for it.

2000+ years ago people were more open to supestion and a myth was formed, that became a religion, poor sod probably just wanted better working conditions and equal rights, not a load of people using his name for 2000 years to do excuse their actions be them good or bad.

Plenty of history that has little physical evidence is speculted without fact to fill the dots.
 
Last edited:
urban genie said:
Things that are widely considered historically true about a man called Jesus at the time
There was a man called Jesus who was a Galilean Jew with known activities confined to Galilee and Judea.
He was baptized by John the Baptist.
He called disciples.
He had a controversy at the Temple andwas crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.
After his death his disciples continued.
Some of his disciples were persecuted.

No proof exits he was born in a barn, so no reason to get upset over such a thing.

Though it is an important part of 2 gospels out of 4 (and countless others unrecognised)

Lasty as the nativity is considered idolatry in strict christian reality only catholics should be showing it so that's 4 million people to offend in the UK, though if like me they are lapsed I expect most have better things to worry about
Click to expand...

I am such a lapsed Catholic that I have been a member of the @bad Catholic" club for many years now.

I have to disagree with your assertion that, " Things that are widely co side red historically true about Jesus".

There is absolutely zero historical evidence about the Jesus Character in the bible. The only source of reference to him.

As a catholic, finding out that over 20 other deity's have the same back story, most pre dating Jesus, leaves you with one choice of opinion.

It's not possible or reasonable to think God would pick the same story as previous gods.

The fact that a man could cut about attracting thousands, raisin the dead, walking on water etc and no reference to the potential threat he could lose is farcical if you study how Rome dealt with threats.

No evidence he existed, contradicting evidence in abundance means you take it on faith.

Faith is not a virtue. Faith is an abandonment of your critical
faculties. Because people want it to be true, doesn't make it so. Neither does 2billion people buying it.

If you have evidence I would gladly look at it. Apart from a mention by Josephus nearly 80 years after he died, which was primarily about the cult that had grown up, not proof he even existed.

If you haven't looked into the other gods whose story is the same you can start with this.

 
BimboBob said:
Indeed. But without any actual evidence, apart from one bone, it's very hard to prove they were doing this on a mass scale in the Holy Lands around this time. As with anything to do with the bible. No proof.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed, there is no evidence it was common in this region, it was used all over the Roman empire, but wasn't
the most common form of execution, apparently. The crucifixion of Jesus, if it happened, has brought it into the public
consciousness.
 
urban genie said:
The history of the era should not be dismissed because of the bible which is a work of fiction.

Roman were crucifying people from 3rd century BC until constantine outlawed it.

Most schollars attest the lack of evidence to the fact that those executed were political prisoners or criminals and would be throw. into rivers or ditches so the bones would be scattered, the nails would be valuable as a metal and reused and that most crucifictions would habe been on trees or walls and those on closes the would would have rotted by now.

Spartacus and his uprising were crucified, crucifixtion were used in the roman civil wars so it is not unexpected that it was used in judea.

Flavia Jesephus is attested by historians to have documented john the baptist baptising a man named jesus who was a wise teacher.
It also claims in the wriitngs of titus 70AD that a man called the wise king who was a political prisoner and teacher was executed by pilot.

Most historia. agree both reference the man then used in the bible.

I don't believe the bible tales, but I can believe a man may have exsited who was probably a political activist who protested the corruption of the then roman controled jewish state and was executed for it.

2000+ years ago people were more open to supestion and a myth was formed, that became a religion, poor sod probably just wanted better worming conditions and equal rights, not a load of people using his name for 2000 years to do excuse their actions be them good or bad.

Plenty of history that has little physical evidence is speculted without fact to fill the dots.
Click to expand...

About sums it up.

About the bones. We have found thousands of bones from that time period in all manner of places in that area and yet only one that we can certainly say was the result of crucifixion. Which is a little weird. Still, as you say, it was a known form of Roman torture/ killing so the likelihood of it being used is high.

One note on Spartacus. Died in battle. Not crucified.
 
BimboBob said:
About sums it up.

About the bones. We have found thousands of bones from that time period in all manner of places in that area and yet only one that we can certainly say was the result of crucifixion. Which is a little weird. Still, as you say, it was a known form of Roman torture/ killing so the likelihood of it being used is high.

One note on Spartacus. Died in battle. Not crucified.
Click to expand...

I never knew that, I knew his uprising memebers. were crucified though and like Ancient Citizen believed he was too because of the film.

Just googled died in battle but the body was never found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top