Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Bearable Conservatives.


Guest Numero Veinticinco
 Share

Recommended Posts

Righto.

 

 

My understanding is that three of the Gospels were written by the people who knew him.

 

As for "existed", again my understanding was not the question of whether he existed, but the question of whether he was the son of God. A man called Jesus of Nazareth caused a huge stir in the Roman Empire by performing [miracles/magic tricks], gaining a huge following and then [rising from the dead/having his body stolen], and the evidence of that is substantial.

Not really they were written a long time after. Plus there's no record of him anywhere until then. He probably existed. He didn't cause a big stir either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really they were written a long time after. Plus there's no record of him anywhere until then. He probably existed. He didn't cause a big stir either.

 

 

Mate, he did cause a reasonably big stir because, on the back of some pesky but meek, peaceable and secretive shit-stirrers preaching in his name - who did nothing much else noteworthy other than get thrown to lions or executed in other whimsical ways - the Roman Empire (the entire Western and parts of the Eastern World) was Christian within 300 years of Jesus' "existence".  If they did make Jesus up, it was an influential fabrication.

Christianity, a piss-ant hippy cult, had much more impact on the world's politics and power of the day than Judaism, for instance, which was established and had existed and indeed co-existed with Rome for a lot lot longer to much less effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, he did cause a reasonably big stir because, on the back of some pesky but meek, peaceable and secretive shit-stirrers preaching in his name - who did nothing much else noteworthy other than get thrown to lions or executed in other whimsical ways - the Roman Empire (the entire Western and parts of the Eastern World) was Christian within 300 years of Jesus' "existence". If they did make Jesus up, it was an influential fabrication.

Christianity, a piss-ant hippy cult, had much more impact on the world's politics and power of the day than Judaism, for instance, which was established and had existed and indeed co-existed with Rome for a lot lot longer to much less effect.

That's not what I said. He didn't make much of a stir, there were a few hundred followers for decades until a Roman Emperor (can't remember who now but I'll check) took up the cause and made it popular. So Christianity bacame big, but he wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I said. He didn't make much of a stir, there were a few hundred followers for decades until a Roman Emperor (can't remember who now but I'll check) took up the cause and made it popular. So Christianity bacame big, but he wasn't.

 

 

Constantine didn't take up the cause.  He reacted to and exploited the strong catholic impact it was having across the empire, and saw it as a unifying and even authoritarian tool.

And the fewer the followers Christianity had (which I'd vouch was perhaps more than a few hundred) the more it underlines my point about the stir it/Christ created. His influence at the time (preaching peace) was of enough concern to a key, high ranking, brutal regional Roman military governor to have him killed for disturbing the Pax Romani. His "martyrdom" was a springboard for a huge political, not just religious movement. He was big enough at the time I would argue. To distinguish him from the bigness of Christianity is disingenuous I think, and akin to separating Mohammed from Islam.

Anyhow, 2000 years later, there'll be interpretative disputes won't there?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one good thing about tories, they're easily entertained.

 

Just have debate about how unbearable they are or show them a video of some poor people suffering & they'll be rolling about laughing.

Nah, it's much funnier watching you circle jerking whilst desperately trying to out lefty each other

 

"I hate all Tories"

"Is that all, I'd hang them from a lamp post"

"Is that all? I won't even look at one. If i did I'd pluck out my own eyes and pour bleach in the holes"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, it's much funnier watching you circle jerking whilst desperately trying to out lefty each other

 

"I hate all Tories"

"Is that all, I'd hang them from a lamp post"

"Is that all? I won't even look at one. If i did I'd pluck out my own eyes and pour bleach in the holes"

 

I love how you see everyone else on this forum as one entity & seem to take every comment at face value.

 

It's a Football forum, not an editorial in a national newspaper. For the record, one of my grannies was a staunch tory voter & I thought the World of her despite the political stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you see everyone else on this forum as one entity & seem to take every comment at face value.

 

It's a Football forum, not an editorial in a national newspaper. For the record, one of my grannies was a staunch tory voter & I thought the World of her despite the political stuff.

This is a joke right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be harsh!

 

 

[Edit - it's probably to your credit that your autocorrect does not immediately recognise the word "purge".]

 

 

In less sophisticated times, the most awkward autocorrect I used to contend with - as someone that writes for a living and used the word frequently once upon a time - was the word "scripts", for some reason on my mobile phone, coming up as "rapists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you see everyone else on this forum as one entity & seem to take every comment at face value.

 

It's a Football forum, not an editorial in a national newspaper. For the record, one of my grannies was a staunch tory voter & I thought the World of her despite the political stuff.

Wow. My Nans were as staunch Socialists as you could ever get,but its funny how there are often two sides of a family with very opposing beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...