Something Really Strange...

There is something really strange in relation to the New Testament and to be specific in relation to the accounts related to Jesus Christ raising the dead. The problem is that both Greek and Roman cultures had gods that they claimed did the same thing. Why would the Romans kill Jesus Christ given the fact he did something there own gods were able to do?

Could it have been because of racism....could the idea of a person of Israelite decent being considered somehow equal to there gods angered them? Clearly the Old Testament makes clear the fate of Jesus
but what about the cause???

What about Revelations and why Jesus is defined as the lamb?

What about Gods wrath for the killing of his only son???

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
There is something really strange in relation to the New Testament and to be specific in relation to the accounts related to Jesus Christ raising the dead. The problem is that both Greek and Roman cultures had gods that they claimed did the same thing. Why would the Romans kill Jesus Christ given the fact he did something there own gods were able to do?

Could it have been because of racism....could the idea of a person of Israelite decent being considered somehow equal to there gods angered them? Clearly the Old Testament makes clear the fate of Jesus
but what about the cause???

What about Revelations and why Jesus is defined as the lamb?

What about Gods wrath for the killing of his only son???

Any thoughts?

Being raised Christian I started questioning the same kind of things. I can't really give you an answer because your questions just raise more questions for me lol. The first time I questioned my Christian upbringing was when I realized what sex is and the mentality behind it. A virgin back then could not have had a baby, they didn't have test tube babies or anything like that. The more logical side of me says that mary was banding someone to get prego and lied about it when she got caught. How do you logically explain a pregnant virgin? You can't. Then there's all the talk about God is all forgiving and all loving then he basically nukes entire cities of people, I don't buy it. As for killing his only son.......what on earth would that accomplish besides proving your the biggest arse ever.....I don't get it either.

Although the Bible is very interesting, I don't read it, there are too many things in it that don't make sense, like..why would God take your children away just to test your faith, isn't he "All Loving".

There are many more, but you can start with Adam and Eve starting the Human Race !




Peace

Please understand that the consequences for incurring Gods wrath in the context of Revelations is the second death. If in reality Jesus was killed because an Israelite was considered beneath the ability to do things gods could do, then the consequences of Racism is the second death.

Hello Billy197300,

Actually spontaneous births do occur, where there is only one parent. Having worked for the State of Florida, I can tell you that in relation to public assistance there are cases where a woman ends up pregnant without a father involved. It is extremely rare and outside of the biblical reference there is no recorded event such as this, in which a boy was born as a result. I have no links or data to provide as verification, though I can tell you that, based upon my experience, such events do occur. Persons applying for financial assistance are required to report who they think the father is. In cases where the parent claims as to the father have been exhausted DNA test are preformed on the mother. Actually from my understanding it is a 1 in 100 million chance, but it does happen.

Hello Future Thinker,

Another issue concerning the New Testament is the matter of John the Baptist being Ezequiel. Specifically this s in relation to the events, documented in respect to Jesus speaking to Ezequiel and Moses in the garden. How could Ezequiel appear in the Garden when according to Jesus, John the Baptist was an Incarnation of the Prophet?

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai

What about Revelations and why Jesus is defined as the lamb?

He was the last ram of the age of Aries and the first fish of the age of Pisces.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Kashai

What about Revelations and why Jesus is defined as the lamb?

He was the last ram of the age of Aries and the first fish of the age of Pisces.

Nontheless there was ASCLEPIUS as well as a Roman Equivalent

Any thoughts?

politics of the times back then ... to avoid a jewish uprising in the province the roman governer ordered jesus execution ... had nothing to do with religion on the romans part .. just maintaining the power of the empire ..

The politics of an Empire.

The power of Emipres then was based upon the power of gods who had the ability to bring the dead back to life?


Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


No it was based on keeping the nations in your Empire from spawning God-Kings who could raise armies and use them to break away from the Empire.

the romans were more concerned over the crowds of followers he had causing unrest ... to maintain the order and stop the incessant whinging by the jewish priests the roman governer signed off on the execution order... today theyd probably call jesus a terrorist and send him to gitmo to keep the israelis happy..

Jesus was killed for a reason that was later recanted, keep in mind it is the Roman Catholic Church.

Rome converted, they abandoned there gods, despite the fact that, they new other swho also were claimed to have the power to raise the dead. Christianity exist because of this and again, it is apparent that Racism played a role as otherwise Jesus Christ should have been accepted.

Any thoughts?

You seem to be motivated to include racism as a factor. I just don't see it as one.

/shrug

reply to post by Kashai


Long story short. The Jews said Jesus claimed to be the messiah and king. It was illegal to claim you were king and challenge the authority of the emperor. The Jews thought their messiah would overthrow the Romans. The Jews were saying this guy claims to be king (god, messiah, whatever)! He's claiming he will overthrow you! But that's because the Jews didn't believe he was the messiah. They wanted him dead. Basically the Romans were afraid Jesus was a terrorist and committing treason.

But what it was really about is that Jesus had broken the Jewish law (or so they thought) by claiming he was God, not realizing that he actually was (so the story goes anyway). The Jewish people were a subclass of the Roman empire. So, what they were really doing is trying to get the Romans to do their dirty work for them. The Jews wanted Jesus dead and were trying to use the Romans to make it happen. Kinda like how Israel sometimes tries to manipulate the US today.

But after Pilot talked to Jesus he didn't really see what Jesus had done wrong. Pilot wanted to release Jesus. But the Jews wouldn't have it. They demanded he be put to death. They were so hyped up about it they were on the verge of an uprising. So to prevent the uprising he washed his hands of the matter and left the decision up to the Jews. Technically Jesus didn't break the law because he really was King of kings, but they didn't know that. So they killed him on that basis.

As for the lamb. Well it's an allegory. He wasn't just any lamb. Jesus was acting as the passover lamb.
Korban Pesach

And the idea is that Jesus decided to take the wrath of God onto himself so that human kind didn't have to. Jesus asked God to forgive the people that crucified him.

Originally posted by Kashai
There is something really strange in relation to the New Testament and to be specific in relation to the accounts related to Jesus Christ raising the dead. The problem is that both Greek and Roman cultures had gods that they claimed did the same thing. Why would the Romans kill Jesus Christ given the fact he did something there own gods were able to do?

Jesus was seen as simply yet another rabble-rouser in a part of the empire that was full of them. If the Romans were aware of his actions, which is unlikely, they almost certainly figured that they were exaggerations. To anyone but the Jews, Jesus, in his time, was not notable, and to the controllers of the faith, the claims about him were dangerous, so it isn't a surprise that things were kept quiet until the vast number of converts, which came after he had been killed and resurrected, were too many to quell.

Originally posted by Kashai
Why would the Romans kill Jesus Christ given the fact he did something there own gods were able to do?
Any thoughts?

They didn't

Jesus was never a historical person according to Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Jesus was never a historical person according to Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier.

Contrary to the claims of pretty much every other historian to study the matter, apart from Richard Carrier. If you think having a degree makes a person all knowing, there's a lot more omniscient people that think Carrier is full of it than there are omniscient people who think he's right.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Jesus was never a historical person according to Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier.

Contrary to the claims of pretty much every other historian to study the matter, apart from Richard Carrier. If you think having a degree makes a person all knowing, there's a lot more omniscient people that think Carrier is full of it than there are omniscient people who think he's right.

He's also a pretty biased atheist who makes his living off atheist books and websites. He's made it his agenda to prove every religion false and his work isn't peer reviewed. Now it's fine to have an opinion, but one biased atheist doesn't over rule the majority of scholars and historians.

And if they're only going to read books that agree with their point of view then they're not learning anything and wasting their time. They're just confirming what they already believe. Well you don't need to do that. You can believe whatever you want. You don't need to waste time or your money buying books from people that you already agree with. You have to look at the other side of the debate.

Like me, I used to be an atheist and thought there was no real evidence for Jesus but after researching a crap load of history I eventually realized that I was most likely wrong and had to change my view.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Like me, I used to be an atheist and thought there was no real evidence for Jesus but after researching a crap load of history I eventually realized that I was most likely wrong and had to change my view.

Tell me, please, what exactly was that "crap load of history" you studied that cemented your faith? Curious minds want to know. I spent a great many years myself immersed in Christian History and Theology during my Grail search. I searched for Jesus too, and found little evidence of any kind that the man even existed, much less did his deeds. Let's see your evidence, friend.

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Jesus was never a historical person according to Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier.

Contrary to the claims of pretty much every other historian to study the matter, apart from Richard Carrier. If you think having a degree makes a person all knowing, there's a lot more omniscient people that think Carrier is full of it than there are omniscient people who think he's right.

He's also a pretty biased atheist who makes his living off atheist books and websites. He's made it his agenda to prove every religion false and his work isn't peer reviewed. Now it's fine to have an opinion, but one biased atheist doesn't over rule the majority of scholars and historians.

And if they're only going to read books that agree with their point of view then they're not learning anything and wasting their time. They're just confirming what they already believe. Well you don't need to do that. You can believe whatever you want. You don't need to waste time or your money buying books from people that you already agree with. You have to look at the other side of the debate.

Like me, I used to be an atheist and thought there was no real evidence for Jesus but after researching a crap load of history I eventually realized that I was most likely wrong and had to change my view.

edit on 30-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Atheism is the normal. So a "biased atheist" means someone who favors actual truth and reality.