• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you know Jesus wasn't lying?

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that it's somehow indisputably proven that the guy called Jesus Christ existed about 2000 years ago, and that Bible contains a perfectly accurate account of what he said and did. And let's assume for the sake of argument that all his miracles were not parlor tricks, but the result of actual magical, devine, or some other form of power or ability that he possessed.

With all that assumed to be true, how do you know he wasn't lying?

I reject the scenario, we have far more evidence that it was not necessarily Jesus who was lying but rather everyone around him and after definitely was lying their collective asses off.

We have every indication that everyone who wrote about Jesus did so decades after his death not a one of them ever meeting him. We also have every indication that plenty were upset with local Jewish religious authority in bed with their Roman occupiers who all set out and purposefully handled harshly any and all opposition often lining the roads into towns with people crucified there to painfully die and rot away.

We have far more reason, through history mainly, to conclude even if there was a man named Jesus just about every aspect of his life was embellished and mashed into hundreds of prevailing bronze age myths about a "son of God" with a certain number of apostilles, who himself perform miracles dealing with the sick, and so forth. None of which was original up to and including what it took the Roman Empire to settle several hundred years after Jesus died.

The best question to ask is not why did Jesus lie... but rather, why did so many others to the point of the Romans sponsoring a religion over the matter?
 
No.


Funny and sad that you link to a non-scholar who makes his living selling his beliefs about the origin of your religion.

Luke Said Nothing About the Deaths of Paul and Peter
The apostle Paul was martyred in the city of Rome in AD 64, and Peter was martyred shortly afterward in AD 65.

Where can we read about these martyrdoms in early writings? Some early Christian fathers had different beliefs about the deaths of Peter and Paul. Clement of Rome, writing in the 70s CE, I Clement
After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned and had preached in the East and in the West, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West.
At the time Clement wrote this letter, Spain was seen as the "farthest limits of the West"

Then there is the Muratorian Canon, written c. 170 CE
“Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book (Acts). For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence—as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city (of Rome) when he journeyed to Spain.” The Muratorian Canon 34-39

Other early commentators, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Jerome all wrote that Paul moved to Spain after imprisonment in Rome.

Those who have studied the language of the Epistles, all agree that 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by Paul.
"Paul quoted Gospel According to Luke". What if the author of Luke was the one quoting Paul?

We have no reports from any non-Christian sources that support the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

Here's one academic paper on the subject of Nero's "persecution" of Christians.
The Myth of the Neronian Persecution
A conventional certainty is that the first state-driven persecution of Christians happened in the reign of Nero and that it involved the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the mass execution of Christians in the aftermath of the great fire of July 64 CE. The argument here contests all of these facts, especially the general execution personally ordered by Nero. The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus. Although the passage is probably genuine Tacitus, it reflects ideas and connections prevalent at the time the historian was writing and not the realities of the 60s.

A little more of that scholarly crap which so often contradicts beliefs
Is there any evidence that the apostle Peter died in Rome?
There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome. Starting around the end of the second century, Christian pilgrims went to see Peter’s tropaion. But a tropaion is not a tomb. The word itself is very unusual; sometimes translated as “trophy,” it means something like a war memorial or a cenotaph (i.e., an empty grave). It’s not the word used in the Roman Empire for a burial place.
 
I reject the scenario,

Then I don't care about your response. This thread is about the scenario I outlined. If you want to discuss some other scenario, start a different thread.

On second though, never mind. Say whatever you want in this thread. It has already been hijacked with a bunch of irrelevant crap, and the usual bible-thumper suspects have already demonstrated what I fully suspected - that they have no coherent response to the question.
 
Then I don't care about your response. This thread is about the scenario I outlined. If you want to discuss some other scenario, start a different thread.

Then I'll turn around and point out the idiocy of your thread, what evidence do you have that Jesus was lying?
 
Then I'll turn around and point out the idiocy of your thread, what evidence do you have that Jesus was lying?

Congrats on missing the point.
 
Well I demolished your last post, which was typical liberal bs, complete with the usual liberal, dilettante theology that we find from people on the left.



Who gives a rat's rear end? Did you liberals forget what Martin Luther King said, that people should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin? Today's liberals focus first on what color people are, and if they're engaged in an illicit gay and lesbian relationship then that's even better. Give them a trophy, right? Barf.


Spare me your nonsense. How do you think minorities like Biden's gas prices and inflation, that started going up as soon as he took office?

Here's your Democratic Party today: Now advancing the perverse, the profane, the unnatural, the slaughter of the innocents, open borders, pornography, confiscating firearms from lawful citizens; disrespect for law enforcement, legalization of illicit drugs, reverse racism, social divisions, the abolition of traditional American values and beliefs, antisemitism, godlessness, anti-constitutionalism, socialism, forced redistribution of wealth, a weakened national defense, massive government growth, raising taxes, single payer healthcare by the government, inflation, high gas and food prices, sanctuary cities for criminals, a massive, plantation-style, government welfare system, regressive progressivism, attacks on religious free speech and Christianity, vitriolic intolerance of conservative beliefs, dogmatism, nihilism, and anti-intellectualism, to name a few.

And here's your track record on governing:

Liberal Policy Disasters -

The problem with Democrats / liberals is they have a real problem looking into the future to see the horrendous damage their policies do.

Do you remember when the liberals placed a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich")? What happened was the rich quit buying yachts, so the yacht manufacturers lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy - again. And you guys were too blind to see that coming.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Higher taxes helped pay for that. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every vagrant in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime went up, and the homeless were everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and engaging in criminal activities. The police finally had enough and told the libs they had to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Liberalism gone mad again.

Want to raise taxes on the corporations? Since most competitors will have their taxes raised, they’ll just raise their prices and pass it along to the little guy – the consumer. We’ll be paying the higher taxes for the corporations. The little guy gets screwed again. Or, corporations will leave America and operate out of lower tax countries. Common sense. Liberals don’t have it.

Tax the wealthy? A great many of them will move to whatever state or country gives them a better deal. Redistribute their wealth? Rabbi Aryeh Spero noted, “It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.”

The same thing will happen in America. Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left-wing economic scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.


Next, a San Francisco reporter details “disaster’ of city’s ‘hotels for homeless’ program. ‘It’s pandemonium.

Excerpt: "You are talking drug-fueled parties, overdoses, deaths, people are being assaulted. You have sexual assaults going on, it is pandemonium...People are not just horrified, they are traumatized by what they see. You have mattresses that have feces on them, blood, hospital bands on the floor. What people are seeing is so horrible that they walk out and they say, 'I don't want to go back in there."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-hotels-for-homeless-absolute-disaster

Liberal socialism is a black market for toilet paper.

Bravo, Ginger Ale!
Another conservative rant does not a conversation make. All I hear from you is bitching. The truth hurts, and you let us all know how hurt you are. Bravo to you!
 
Repeating for probably the 30th time with you:

The time to believe in something is when there is verifiable evidence for it, not before.

Do you believe there’s an invisible intangible pink unicorn sitting right next to you right now? Science doesn’t say they couldn’t exist.

HOWEVER, what you're doing is making a serious conclusive claim - that the supernatural doesn't exist simply because there is no verifiable evidence.
Isn't that what you claimed? Or, am I confusing you with other atheists here?


Are you open to the possibility - just as much as science is?
 
HOWEVER, what you're doing is making a serious conclusive claim - that the supernatural doesn't exist simply because there is no verifiable evidence.
Isn't that what you claimed? Or, am I confusing you with other atheists here?


Are you open to the possibility - just as much as science is?

Science is not open to the possibility of anything that is not physical.
 
HOWEVER, what you're doing is making a serious conclusive claim - that the supernatural doesn't exist simply because there is no verifiable evidence.
Isn't that what you claimed? Or, am I confusing you with other atheists here?


Are you open to the possibility - just as much as science is?

No, I'm saying there is no reason to believe it does exist until verifiable evidence is found.

Do you believe there’s an invisible intangible pink unicorn sitting right next to you right now?
 
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that it's somehow indisputably proven that the guy called Jesus Christ existed about 2000 years ago, and that Bible contains a perfectly accurate account of what he said and did.
We already know the highlighted above can't be true, because the alleged "perfectly accurate accounts" differ in the gospels. If they all said the same thing, with no omissions and variations, they might have been "perfectly accurate accounts" - but they didn't, so they can't be.
 
No, I'm saying there is no reason to believe it does exist until verifiable evidence is found.

Do you believe there’s an invisible intangible pink unicorn sitting right next to you right now?


What's a pink unicorn got to do with this?
You're talking something that's meant to be fictional!
I just answered something similar just a moment ago. here, let me re-post it:


Then, you've got some serious work to do on your understanding.


Comparing the concept of God - I'm of course speaking about the Abrahamic God - with that of unicorns and mermaids, is a faulty way of thinking.

They're not comparable at all.


I assume you mean flying unicorns (not the real animals with single horns), and mermaids are admittedly from fictional stories.

FICTION - that's what their authors meant for them to be! Same with the novel, Harry Potter!


Lol - just to hammer the point - have you ever seen reputable people debating the existence of mermaids and unicorns? Or, even Zeus and Venus for that matter? Or, Harry Potter?
Have you heard of reputable scientists trying to figure them out? Or, just discussing about them? :ROFLMAO:
 
Funny and sad that you link to a non-scholar who makes his living selling his beliefs about the origin of your religion.

Well, he's a cold-case homicide detective also, and was a rabid atheist for 35 years before he did his research for a number of years before writing anything for the public.

I also find this humorous that you cite it and think it helps you:

"Then there is the Muratorian Canon, written c. 170 CE"
“Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book (Acts). For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence—as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city (of Rome) when he journeyed to Spain.” The Muratorian Canon 34-39

What it does is confirm Luke compiled evidence of the Acts of the Apostles in the Book of Acts - some of which took place in Luke's presence. And the fact that he didn't mention the martyrdom of Peter just shows how early Luke wrote (NLT 64 AD).
 
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that it's somehow indisputably proven that the guy called Jesus Christ existed about 2000 years ago, and that Bible contains a perfectly accurate account of what he said and did. And let's assume for the sake of argument that all his miracles were not parlor tricks, but the result of actual magical, devine, or some other form of power or ability that he possessed.

With all that assumed to be true, how do you know he wasn't lying?

AFAIK, there's no actual archaeological evidence that a single individual named Jesus ever existed. It could have been a 'cult' or 'religion' with multiple leaders and adherents for all we know.
 
Another conservative rant does not a conversation make. All I hear from you is bitching. The truth hurts, and you let us all know how hurt you are. Bravo to you!

"Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils." - Author unknown

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination." - Matt Walsh

"Keep in mind that liberalism is a worldly philosophy that takes liberties with the Word of God, twisting or abrogating the principles and commandments of God and replacing them with the subjective tenets of mankind. Liberalism is moral, economic, spiritual, and intellectual syphilis - a scourge to mankind and an affront to God." - author unknown

"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're REGRESSIVE, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

Evan Sayet on liberalism: “Liberal ideology leads [liberals] to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." “There is no such thing as a thoughtful liberal.” Sayet added that liberals are attracted to intellectualism, but “their beliefs have been stunted at the age of five. And this is not an exaggeration.”
 
Prove they did know but FORGOT??? to write about it.

You made this claim that John and Mark never knew about the nativity:

"They did not deny the nativity because they never knew about it."

So, I'm calling you out to prove they never knew about the nativity. Where's the beef?
 
What's a pink unicorn got to do with this?
You're talking something that's meant to be fictional!
I just answered something similar just a moment ago. here, let me re-post it:


Then, you've got some serious work to do on your understanding.


Comparing the concept of God - I'm of course speaking about the Abrahamic God - with that of unicorns and mermaids, is a faulty way of thinking.

They're not comparable at all.


I assume you mean flying unicorns (not the real animals with single horns), and mermaids are admittedly from fictional stories.

FICTION - that's what their authors meant for them to be! Same with the novel, Harry Potter!


Lol - just to hammer the point - have you ever seen reputable people debating the existence of mermaids and unicorns? Or, even Zeus and Venus for that matter? Or, Harry Potter?
Have you heard of reputable scientists trying to figure them out? Or, just discussing about them? :ROFLMAO:

The concept of an imaginary god is no different than the concept of any other imaginary being. It only gets special treatment form those who can't see that it is only a concept of something completely made up and imagined by human beings, just like any other imagined concept with no basis in physical reality.
 
You made this claim that John and Mark never knew about the nativity:

"They did not deny the nativity because they never knew about it."

So, I'm calling you out to prove they never knew about the nativity. Where's the beef?

You made the claim that they didn't deny the nativity. Where is the evidence backing that claim?
 
"Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils." - Author unknown

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination." - Matt Walsh

"Keep in mind that liberalism is a worldly philosophy that takes liberties with the Word of God, twisting or abrogating the principles and commandments of God and replacing them with the subjective tenets of mankind. Liberalism is moral, economic, spiritual, and intellectual syphilis - a scourge to mankind and an affront to God." - author unknown

"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're REGRESSIVE, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

Evan Sayet on liberalism: “Liberal ideology leads [liberals] to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." “There is no such thing as a thoughtful liberal.” Sayet added that liberals are attracted to intellectualism, but “their beliefs have been stunted at the age of five. And this is not an exaggeration.”

Your ignorance of liberalism and conservatism is noted. Your quotes of idiots means nothing. Everyone has an opinion.
 
AFAIK, there's no actual archaeological evidence that a single individual named Jesus ever existed. It could have been a 'cult' or 'religion' with multiple leaders and adherents for all we know.

Do you understand what the word "pretend" means?
 
"Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils." - Author unknown

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination." - Matt Walsh

"Keep in mind that liberalism is a worldly philosophy that takes liberties with the Word of God, twisting or abrogating the principles and commandments of God and replacing them with the subjective tenets of mankind. Liberalism is moral, economic, spiritual, and intellectual syphilis - a scourge to mankind and an affront to God." - author unknown

"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're REGRESSIVE, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

Evan Sayet on liberalism: “Liberal ideology leads [liberals] to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." “There is no such thing as a thoughtful liberal.” Sayet added that liberals are attracted to intellectualism, but “their beliefs have been stunted at the age of five. And this is not an exaggeration.”
I should thank you for proving my point.
 
What's a pink unicorn got to do with this?
You're talking something that's meant to be fictional!
I just answered something similar just a moment ago. here, let me re-post it:


Then, you've got some serious work to do on your understanding.


Comparing the concept of God - I'm of course speaking about the Abrahamic God - with that of unicorns and mermaids, is a faulty way of thinking.

They're not comparable at all.


I assume you mean flying unicorns (not the real animals with single horns), and mermaids are admittedly from fictional stories.

FICTION - that's what their authors meant for them to be! Same with the novel, Harry Potter!


Lol - just to hammer the point - have you ever seen reputable people debating the existence of mermaids and unicorns? Or, even Zeus and Venus for that matter? Or, Harry Potter?
Have you heard of reputable scientists trying to figure them out? Or, just discussing about them? :ROFLMAO:

You realize the Bible talks about unicorns as if they are real, yes?
 
You realize the Bible talks about unicorns as if they are real, yes?

How do you know they're not real? Have you been to all parts of the planet throughout all of history? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom