Who killed jesus?

Right...That's one of the poorest points I've ever seen anybody even attempt to try and make. How would you propose one goes about doing so, then? Why, by default, must one single explanation for Jesus' death be correct if the whole thing is fiction? How does one go about investigating an event that never happened? How would you choose which explanation is the 'correct' one?

I don't accept that question in it's original form, as I don't think it can be answered.

You can investigate it quite simply by reading the four accounts of Christ's life and death in the four Gospels. Whether you regard it as fiction or not is irrelevent.

Each Gospel has a slightly different view, all you need to do is decide which is relevent and voila, you have your answer.

It is the same principle as 'Who shot JR" (or Mr Burns, if you aren't as old as me).
 
Right...That's one of the poorest points I've ever seen anybody even attempt to try and make. How would you propose one goes about doing so, then? Why, by default, must one single explanation for Jesus' death be correct if the whole thing is fiction? How does one go about investigating an event that never happened? How would you choose which explanation is the 'correct' one?

I don't accept that question in it's original form, as I don't think it can be answered.

If as you claim he is fictional hen the way it is detailed in the bible would be true.


Why, by default, must one single explanation for Jesus' death be correct if the whole thing is fiction?


Because if asked who killed the emperor, the films clearly show *spoiler* Darth Vader*spoiler* doing it, it would be silly to say there could be more than one explanation (the designer who decided a bottomless pit would be a nice feature perhaps/).

How does one go about investigating an event that never happened?

Again if the event is fictional the you'd treat it like any other storey book and see what the book says.


Either way it must be horrible trying to discuss literature or films with you if you just scream "it's not real" at people.




edit: bah **** you Castiel. :mad:
 
If as you claim he is fictional hen the way it is detailed in the bible would be true.





Because if asked who killed the emperor, the films clearly show *spoiler* Darth Vader*spoiler* doing it, it would be silly to say there could be more than one explanation (the designer who decided a bottomless pit would be a nice feature perhaps/).



Again if the event is fictional the you'd treat it like any other storey book and see what the book says.


Either way it must be horrible trying to discuss literature or films with you if you just scream "it's not real" at people.




edit: bah **** you Castiel. :mad:

It was Darth Vader?!

I thought it was a borg cube! (See, I'm learning!)

*edit*

Oh and am I the only one that gets reminded of the 'Who's that PoKemon!?' when reading the thread title? Or atleast read it in that shouty voice.
 
wonder when people will realise that arguing on a forum about faiths and creation v evolution is a COMPLETE waist of time...

close the thread
 
Except it wasn't; 'Jesus' is our westernised lexicon. Also, his full name is Jesus Christ, 'Christ' being the saviour.

Which would make it a title, not a name. "Anointed" would be a better translation than "saviour".

Both are taken from Greek anyway, so it isn't even just one remove from the original. It is admittedly possible that he could have had a Greek name (Greek was widely used as a lingua franca in the Roman empire), but it's very unlikely. Speaking Greek as a useful second language, yes. Naming your children with Greek names, no.

So at the very least we have ? ---> Greek ---> English. Maybe Latin in there as well. And the English pronunciation is provably wrong anyway, even just going from the Greek. We don't even know if the old Greek was a Greek version of his real name or something made up later.
 
Not overnight no, have you not seen how the israeli controlled territories have slowly but surely been expanding over the past 50 odd years?

Can anyone stand up too or question Israel? No chance.

Oh yeah, Israel is clearly the dominant power in the world. It's the alien technology that does it, obviously. That gives them more power than the rest of the world.

I don't expect to be able to convince you of anything, but is it fair for me to say just wait and see? Power is returning to the holy land after thousands of years, and it seems Israel is set to take over from the USA as the next ruling state in the world. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

People throughout the centuries have said silly things as prophecies. They've all been wrong. You will be as well.

"Israel is set to take over from the USA as the next ruling state in the world." is one of the most ridiculous prophecies I've seen. Have you ever heard of a little place called China?

Those who have completely left religion, and think now that they know better because we have scientifically advanced have been deceived by the life of this world.

Standard meaningless blather.

The process of eradicating religious belief from the world has been on going and it has worked,

Yeah, no-one believes in any religion nowadays. All the religious stuff we see every day is just a hallucination caused by...something.

You're making some statements so obviously untrue that I conclude you're either an idiot, a troll or a theist. Since you claim religion no longer exists, you can't claim to be a theist.

because most the religions today have been corrupted to some degree. Even Islam which I follow, has been divided into many different sects.

You just said religion no longer exists, so how can you claim to be a Muslim?

Religions splinter into sects for the simple reason that there is nothing to support any of them. There is no clear message, no demonstrable truth, nothing. So anyone can interpret anything into any of them. Sooner or later, various people are going to make differing interpretations that lead to different sects, sometimes even different religions. You should know that, given that Islam is a spin-off from Judaism and Christianity (which is itself a spin-off from Judaism). Your entire religion is a successful sect of Judaism that has since splintered into further sects. It will split into more unless one sect manages to gain enough power to slaughter the others.

I think you completely missed my point.

You claimed that Jews (i.e. all of them) rejected Jesus, had him killed and partied to celebrate his death. Your point is obviously to smear Jews.

In Islam we are taught that a prophet was sent to every nation. Jesus pbuh himself confirms he was only sent to 'the lost sheep of Israel', therefore you have no place living in England in the year 2010, saying you follow Jesus pbuh.

That might be true for a Muslim who interprets Islam the way you do, but it's obviously irrelevant to everyone else.

According to Islam there were over a hundred thousand prophets sent, each to a different region/nation/group of people, the last of them all being Muhammed pbuh whose message (the Quran) was for the whole of mankind. It is for this reason that when Jesus pbuh returns, he will not return as a prophet, nor will he return with any new religion or any new message, but he will return as one of the ummah of Muhammed pbuh.

Over 100,000 prophets and only 2 of them succeeded in gaining power? That's a pretty crappy success rate for an omnipotent deity.

It's only as a mark of respect. I understand if you don't believe in it and therefore don't wish to use it :) but it is easy enough to speak politely so that those of other faiths/beliefs are not put off contributing to the discussion because of some people who just slander/abuse without a second thought.

Personally, I don't falsely pretend respect unless I'm forced to. At the moment, religion doesn't have enough power to impose rule by fear in the UK. It has in the past and maybe it will again in the future, but not right now.
 
That is a pretty silly argument. I can ask "Who killed Heracles?" knowing he is fictional. His fictional status doesn't stop your from answering the question.

How do you know that Heracles is fictional? Plenty of theists believed in him, too.
 
If as you claim he is fictional hen the way it is detailed in the bible would be true.
When have I claimed that he is fictional? I merely stated that he's not a historical figure, no proof of his existence is in existence.

You can investigate it quite simply by reading the four accounts of Christ's life and death in the four Gospels. Whether you regard it as fiction or not is irrelevent.

Each Gospel has a slightly different view, all you need to do is decide which is relevent and voila, you have your answer.

It is the same principle as 'Who shot JR" (or Mr Burns, if you aren't as old as me).
I'm sorry, but no. None of what's written in the gospels could even come close to being known as evidence in the mind of any reasonable, rational individual. It's not a case of reading four accounts and you then decided which one sounds nicest, that doesn't advance the question even a millimetre forward.
 
Last edited:
I saw someone mention earlier that Jesus was real whether you like it or not, yet I have always wondered how people know this to be true.
I watched a Horizon documentary ( i know not entirely a perfect example, but more research than I can do) about the finds of another book of the old testament (or several) written by Peter, which suggest no mention at all of a man called Jesus, and that a lot of scholars don't actually believe he existed.

A book of the OT by Peter? Peter who was born centuries after the OT was written? Seems rather unlikely.

I know little on the subject so I'd be interested to know what particular pieces of evidence pre-bible writings actually make mention of the man? Is there census's running back 2000years? Is there a particular scroll or some book that makes this true.
Thanks.

No, to all those questions.

That isn't evidence in itself. The Roman empire wrote a lot of stuff down, but a preacher in a small local religion in a quite remote province of the empire would not have been mentioned extensively in records. Maybe a line or two in a report when he was executed, perhaps. If such a record did exist, it would hardly be surprising that it has long since been lost. Major Roman works of great importance are known to have been lost (e.g. most of Titus Livius' massive work "A History of Rome From its Foundation", which historians would cheerfully crawl a thousand miles for), so the lack of a record of a trivial (to the empire at the time) event doesn't mean anything. Ditto for census records.

The evidence falls into two parts:

i) The existence of Christianity, the beginning of which can be traced to that area and that time. It is clearly a spin-off from Judaism, originally close enough to convince many Jews that it was the correct form of the religion. That implies (though it doesn't prove) that someone in that area in that time preached a new version of Judaism that was different enough to become classed as a different religion.

ii) Roman references when Christianity started to become a problem for the empire. The earliest source, Josephus, is from the end of the first century, probably ~90, but it's tainted by very strong evidence that later Christians edited it, added some of their own beliefs, maybe took some stuff out. The originals are long gone. Anyway, Josephus doesn't state as a definite historical fact that Jesus lived. There are a few other sources from a bit later, e.g. Tacitus, written ~116 in a piece about Nero. Drawbacks for that one are (i) Tacitus is notoriously hard to translate clearly (ii) his style was that of oratory at least as much as it was of history (iii) he was reporting what people believed (iv) later Christian writers don't mention Tacitus' account even when they are writing about Nero, which is odd if Tacitus' account had existed then (i.e. wasn't made up later as part of a propaganda mission to create an image of Christians being savagely oppressed victims all the time). It is very scathing of Christianity, but a clever Christian faker might have done that in order to make people think it must be genuine.

In short, there isn't any compelling evidence for Jesus (whatever his real name was) having lived at all, but there is some.

If he didn't exist at all, how did Christianity start?
 
its true my friend, even the Romans wrote about him, im not stating that about miracles or son of God, but there is no denning that there was a guy called Jesus who claimed to be the son of God, as i said he was written and recorded about more so than the Romans were, and yet we all know the Romans existed.

None of that is true. Not a single part of it.

Admittedly, some Romans centuries later wrote about Jesus, but they were Christians. Apart from that, your post is completely wrong. Laughably wrong. Ridiculously wrong. So insanely wrong that it wouldn't even make a good trolling because nobody could possibly believe it.

Stuff the Romans built is still here. Vast amounts of stuff. If you dig down a bit, you find a vast amount more. Miles of documents record the 2000 years of Rome. For Jesus, you have some indirect references that might have been written at least 60 years later or might have been faked, all of which are referring to what Christians believe to be true (as opposed to a statement of historical fact).

You're so far wrong that you can't possibly be serious. If you were to claim that Elvis is alive and well and sharing a flat with you, you would be taken more seriously.
 
For most people yes, it will be a way of controlling a way of their logic... but I think I've watched enough documentaries about criminal minds (psychotic one's) to tell you that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" being stuck in their head and controlling their logic and emotion would have actually been useful...

It's a shame that commandment never existed. Oh, you can find it in some mistranslations of the Christian bible, but it isn't really there and it's not meant to be taken seriously.

The actual commandment would more accurately be translated as "You must not kill unless the religious authorities order you to kill or you claim the killing was a good thing and the religious authorties decide to agree with you."

For example, I saw documentary of a Doctor in Japan who was a cannibal who rapes and eats little girls... the reason he does it is because his emotion and logic differs from most people... seeing little girls in pain and being chopped up causes him to get excited (gets a boner) and receives an emotion we perceive as happinness and joy.

What would stop him interpreting religion to be divine support for him raping and eating little girls? Plenty of theists have believed they've had divine support for torture and murder.
 
When have I claimed that he is fictional? I merely stated that he's not a historical figure, no proof of his existence is in existence.

Which kinda syas you think he is fictional.

I'm sorry, but no. None of what's written in the gospels could even come close to being known as evidence in the mind of any reasonable, rational individual. It's not a case of reading four accounts and you then decided which one sounds nicest, that doesn't advance the question even a millimetre forward.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you accept the validity of it's reality or not.

The answer to who killed him is in black and white within those pages, whether it is fiction or not is completely irrelevent.

It doesn't have to be reasonable or rational, it is simply the answer to the question 'Who Killed Jesus'
 
Which kinda syas you think he is fictional.
No, it does not.



You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you accept the validity of it's reality or not.

The answer to who killed him is in black and white within those pages, whether it is fiction or not is completely irrelevent.

It doesn't have to be reasonable or rational, it is simply the answer to the question 'Who Killed Jesus'
I'm not missing the point, I get what you're trying to say in it's totality. I just don't accept the grammar of the question when it was first posed.
 
Back
Top Bottom