chaosrage

Bret was really great for the entire year in 97. The heel speech he did after WM was better than anything I've ever heard from Austin. Sure it was all because it was true emotion but that's a good thing.

Yeah... Just like you might not *like* RVD, but he IS a good wrestler. Hey, I'm as good as you at this!

I wouldn't take anything they say too seriously. We've been over this match and over and over and over it and arguments against it never stand up. They didn't start not liking each other until after the match. But they hate each other now, and they both still call it one of the best matches they ever had. That probably means it was shite though.

BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Okay, everyone with a brain gather around. My point is there's no evidence for him existing. People removing his name from public record still isn't evidence of him existing. It doesn't matter whether or not people inserted his name in the text because Josephus was born AFTER the death of Jesus. And there is the thing of course everybody is dismissing, Mythra. That's something else. If Jesus was *really* performing miracles left and right like the bible says, why would the jews have rejected him? They were there afterall, why should we think we know more than they did at the time? It's only a possibility. That's why I dismissed it. You imagine it, that's great. There's still no evidence for it. For Christians inserting Jesus stuff into the text, you can actually point to people before and after Eusebius that quoted him and left that one part out, including Christians. And no one else made mention of him saying it, although some said he didn't say anything about Christ. It's not proof but it's evidence that he might not have said it. In any case, it doesn't really matter because like I said Jesus was dead before he was born, and he wrote it about 50 years later.

But from the same site.. link Ratsach (root word of Rasah) raw-tsakh' Verb Definition to murder, slay, kill 1. premeditated 2. accidental 3. as avenger

From the links on page 1 and 2 "Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate. Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian." --- Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus was born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birthday puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts. --- "Dr. Lardner, who wrote about A. D. 1760, says: It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except the testimony above mentione, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. "

I haven't had the time to play a RPG in awhile. I've still got Xenosaga to beat and that's been since about February. Probably the reason why I'm not at RPGA anymore.

Heh, I made the thread and I can't even get it yet. I'm on my way to go fail an exam right now. Maybe I'll pick it up when I get back. Or maybe I'll stick my head in an oven instead. One of the two.

The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.

The disciples didn't write those books, they were probably dead. A lot of people think they were written by different groups and the names just got assigned to them about 100 years later. There were thousands of religious manuscripts circulating through the area 70-200 years after he supposedly died, so some of the people could write, but nobody can trace any one of them back to his time. That's sorta ridiculous but alright. It's still a lack of evidence to us though, no matter what the reason for it is. It all comes to down to there's no evidence to support him existing and lots of evidence against it (Mithraism).

Mythraism was monotheistic.

No, I don't hug zombies. Uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Brains........

I was talking about this board...

That's you and like one other guy. To everyone else, RVD has good matches every week. So... I can't say I'm really caring a whole lot about what you think is laughable.

Both sides have good wrestlers, but RAW is more entertaining. Not because it's live either, I usually don't care enough to pay attention to spoilers. RVD is a good wrestler. Wrestler that has good matches = a good wrestler.

(shrug) i don't think it's close either. shining and exorcist were more funny than scary

Okay. Who was arguing that?

You can't prove that anyone not even Santa Claus doesn't exist. We can't prove that a spaceship wasn't hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet. What I'm asking is what would make you put faith in that particular story?

We probably have records of him doing stuff from people that lived in his lifetime. For Christ, we don't.

What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first. It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.

The point is there's nothing to make you think he existed.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not. Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings. You don't worship a guy because of his philosophy. You worship him because you think he's the son of God.

So what if we aren't sure? That doesn't mean he's automatically invalidated along with all his teachings. This is a real piss-poor argument to somehow invalidate what the man supposedly preached. Everything he says about God should kinda be invalidated because not only are we not sure if he told the truth or if he performed real miracles, but we're not sure if he ever WAS to begin with.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.