Mancini Manus Domini
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,682
So two goals in added time to win the title from our hated rivals, a miracle just for you, and yet you still don't believe. Unbelievable!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
They did when I was at uni up there and one of our favourite capers was to descend mob-handed (100+) on a village pub in the middle of nowhere and drink it dry.don't they have dry places in Scotland
They also had this weird rule that pubs couldn't open on Sundays but hotel bars could, after 7pm. The Queens Hotel in Dundee used to be hammered on a Sunday night.
BimboBob
Well-Known Member
This is true.
Jesus did exist and was crucified and lived most of his life in Judea and had disciples (probably because he was thought to be wise and non-violent), but the other 99% of stuff written about him is bollocks. A lot of stuff was omitted by the Catholic Church because it had stuff about dragons and was even more ridiculous than the stuff that got through.
There's no historical source for Jesus ever existing let alone being crucified. Or indeed living in Judea. The story about a man being born, sorts out a few miracles, dies, is reborn only to die again is a story that has been told way before he was ever thought of in loads of different cultures from around the globe. The fact that he is well known is down to Rome trying to save an empire and not the actual truth.
There's no historical source for Jesus ever existing let alone being crucified. Or indeed living in Judea. The story about a man being born, sorts out a few miracles, dies, is reborn only to die again is a story that has been told way before he was ever thought of in loads of different cultures from around the globe. The fact that he is well known is down to Rome trying to save an empire and not the actual truth.
That simply isn't true - see posts above. There are better sources for his life than most others of the same era - you could even call them remarkably and unusually good compared to what might be expected.
This does not for a second affirm a religious belief today though.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,826
We all know it's aliens
BimboBob
Well-Known Member
That simply isn't true - see posts above. There are better sources for his life than most others of the same era - you could even call them remarkably and unusually good compared to what might be expected.
This does not for a second affirm a religious belief today though.
Where? Show me sources. Don't say the bible either. Show me sources where his name is mentioned by people actually, physically there and written down at the time.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,826
There's no historical source for Jesus ever existing let alone being crucified. Or indeed living in Judea. The story about a man being born, sorts out a few miracles, dies, is reborn only to die again is a story that has been told way before he was ever thought of in loads of different cultures from around the globe. The fact that he is well known is down to Rome trying to save an empire and not the actual truth.
Jesus existed, whether he was heaven sent is another matten, tbf the immaculate conception has very strong similarities to the dream Maha Maya has before concevieving Siddhartha Gautama.
Then you have the birth of Issac who was also amiracle birth, so it is easy to see how people would use such to enhance the story of Jesus.
You ask for sources
The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 CE, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitusreferred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (c. CE 116), book 15, chapter 44.
He was a real person, but was probably more an activist against the corruptuon of the state than the son of god
That simply isn't true - see posts above. There are better sources for his life than most others of the same era - you could even call them remarkably and unusually good compared to what might be expected.
This does not for a second affirm a religious belief today though.
Most if not all of the stories are based on anecdotal evidence from the time and whether he existed or not is as relevant as whether any of us existed.
The stuff he was claimed to do is impossible and is described in a book which mentions the Earth being created immediately followed by humans when we all know this isn't true. Humans have been around for around 0.0001% of the Earth's entire history, something the Bible misses out on. Humans are just one species of billions that have existed.
A lot of the stuff written about him is untrue because it is impossible, it was a story that quite frankly got out of hand just like all the others.
The faster religion is outlawed and put to history the quicker we can get on with being humans who do things based upon fact and the things we can see and prove.
Where? Show me sources. Don't say the bible either. Show me sources where his name is mentioned by people actually, physically there and written down at the time.
Why would the Bible be a worse source for Jesus's than, say, Josephus for the life of Vespasian, who commissioned him? It's no different.
As stated, John is probably (not certainly, but then it's not certain Cassius Dio existed for that matter) an eyewitness. That counts as primary evidence, which is a lot more than is the case for an awful lot of historical figures of the time. Yet they are accepted.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of classical historians, who largely accept this. I gave one reference book above, try that for starters. I'm an atheist, I'm not remotely talking about the religious side. But rejecting all and every piece of evidence for existence because you don't want to believe is just being contrary.
Most if not all of the stories are based on anecdotal evidence from the time and whether he existed or not is as relevant as whether any of us existed.
The stuff he was claimed to do is impossible and is described in a book which mentions the Earth being created immediately followed by humans when we all know this isn't true. Humans have been around for around 0.0001% of the Earth's entire history, something the Bible misses out on. Humans are just one species of billions that have existed.
A lot of the stuff written about him is untrue because it is impossible, it was a story that quite frankly got out of hand just like all the others.
The faster religion is outlawed and put to history the quicker we can get on with being humans who do things based upon fact and the things we can see and prove.
You are under the peculiar impression I'm talking about belief.