Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 957348" data-attributes="member: 2189">First off, I just commented on Trayvon and regardless of everything else, my point is factually true.  Now does that automatically make Jesus not exist? No but that the evidence of Trayvon is much better.   And besides, if your point of Jesus is true, then why is it then called faith and for believers being required to have such?  Christianity should be called a form or history or even a science if it's fact based as you say.   Faith is only necessary when lack of real evidence to prove the conclusion does not exist.   Ain't that what you guys also say about evolution and that those who lack belief in a creative superbeing are in fact acting on faith as well because in your mind we can't disprove what you have faith in?And for the record, I do believe it's possible that a historical figure maybe even named Jesus or the language equivalent existed but beyond the bible, the Judean Historian Josephus and a name in the Talmud some believe might be Jesus, so little else exists.   Late 1st and early 2nd century Greco-Roman historians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus made note of the name of Christ but in the case of Younger circa 112, he wrote of those called Christians who refused to worship the emperor and who worshiped someone named Christus.  Tacitus circa 116 wrote of Nero after the great fire in Rome assigning blame to a group known as Christians but Tacitus also goes on to say of this person in Christus also suffered death at the hand of Pilate in the days of Tiberius.  This was included to give some reasoning of why Christians would burn Rome as in revenge.   But all that I still can't prove my possibility as factually true based on evidence. And since Tacitus mentioned the death of Christ, why no mention of the resurrection which is far more miraculous anyway?  But neither Younger or Tacitus prove as fact and as historians rightly make note, neither Younger or Tacitus were contemporary to Jesus and thus the question begs, we're they just relating reports of the many stories that circulated about Jesus?  These guys weren't christian but were Roman so were they also bringing the state narrative that served some political purpose?  When you consider at the time there were also numerous accounts of Jesus in the non-canonical books or gospels and those are the one's we happen to know of.  And many of these accounts vastly conflict with one another just as there are conflicts within the 4 gospels we have today.  So which is the true Jesus?  Even Paul's Jesus misses so much from the gospels but when you learned Paul's writings superceded the earliest gospel in Mark by 20 to 30 years and that Paul's writings were 20 years after Christ, then we are dealing not with firsthand accounts but at best the relaying of oral traditions and thus the question of accuracy are justified.  But then here comes faith to salvage the situation.   I've always questioned if Paul was more influenced by the Roman Mithra cult and it's earlier Persian version of Mithra than he was of a historical Jesus figure and then ascribing the Mithraic traditions to Jesus to win converts outside the Judaic world with non-Judeans.  Can't prove it conclusively but the question for me is still there because the Mithra traditions and the Pauline Jesus are so similar and the Mithra doctrines superceded Jesus by several centuries.  But in the case of Martin, I stand by my response to which you replied.And as an aside, I find it ironic that some here who leap at the least moment to defend belief and even Jesus and yet when the moments arise to advance some of the greatest teachings of Jesus, and yes there are many, they always run in the opposite direction.  Some of you better hope I'm right about god because if I'm wrong and you're right, then some of you may hear those more dreaded words, "depart from me for I never knew you" and if so I'll keep your seat warm for you.  Scratch that, warm seats are an unlimited benefit taking your point of view!<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink    :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" />Fast forward to today and consider the fact that in our advanced civilization compared to 1st century life, we still can't get all the facts in regards to either Zimmerman or Martin and the truth is, both sides have played with the facts to fit their own narrative.  So in a day and age when we have so much at hand and we still have a hard time separating myth from fact, should we believe that the 1st century didn't suffer from that problem?  Back to the issue of late in this thread, while having my contrarian fun yesterday with Moreluck (you called it a rant) I was also involved in another conversation elsewhere on the issue of Zimmerman/Martin and similar arguments made here were also made there with others thrown in but I did make one point and I'll make it here because IMO it's valid.  Had the exact circumstances of the incident with Zimmerman and Martin taken place but the difference being that Zimmerman was armed with a baseball bat, would the same people defending Zimmerman now also be defending him and would they have ever gotten into the discussion game to begin with?  Is this really about Zimmerman or is this all about defending something else?  Even consider the title of this thread where this issue has come to be debated!</blockquote>

Verification