About Me
- Name: Stenar
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
This blog is by Stenar. I like to be very active, eat healthy, exercise my body and my mind. I love to dance and I love music and most of all I love Sissel. ;) hehe Check out my Sissel web page: The Sissel Website BUY MY T-SHIRT!
Links
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Jesus Was Wrong
This T-shirt was inspired by the film "Little Miss Sunshine." It's a hilarious movie starring Toni Collette and Greg Kinnear. You'll have to see it when it comes to theatres this summer. (I saw it at the Sundance Film Festival where it was so popular it set a record for the most money ever spent by a distributor purchasing a film at the festival.)CLICK HERE FOR MORE...
# posted by Stenar @ 8:36 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Catchy t-shirt. Seriously, though, what would you say Jesus was wrong about? Or, is this shirt simply a way to take a swipe at the Religious Right?
# posted by
1williamfarel
:
6:52 PM
# posted by
1williamfarel
:
6:52 PM
I'd say he was wrong about pretty much everything, any sane person would.
# posted by Donnerstag
:
7:33 AM
# posted by
Donnerstag
:
7:33 AM
googgoooo
You said: "I'd say he was wrong about pretty much everything, any sane person would."
If He was wrong "about pretty much everything," it ought to be easy to cite an example. Can you cite one?
# posted by
:
8:24 PM
You said: "I'd say he was wrong about pretty much everything, any sane person would."
If He was wrong "about pretty much everything," it ought to be easy to cite an example. Can you cite one?
# posted by
:
8:24 PM
Jesus is a fictional character in a novel... and a pretty bad novel, too. So, it doesn't really matter if his character was wrong as he doesn't exist.
# posted by Stenar
:
8:49 PM
# posted by
Stenar
:
8:49 PM
Stenar
You said: "Jesus is a fictional character in a novel. . . ," etc. The vast majority of historians would disagree with your take on Jesus as a fictional character, even those who are not themselves Christians. So, on what basis to you assert that Jesus is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
8:58 PM
You said: "Jesus is a fictional character in a novel. . . ," etc. The vast majority of historians would disagree with your take on Jesus as a fictional character, even those who are not themselves Christians. So, on what basis to you assert that Jesus is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
8:58 PM
Actually, you're mistaken. You need to get out of church and read some real scholarly works. Almost all historians agree that the Bible is not a historical account of things that actually happened.
# posted by Stenar
:
9:09 PM
# posted by
Stenar
:
9:09 PM
Stenar
You said: "Actually, you're mistaken. You need to get out of church and read some real scholarly works. Almost all historians agree that the Bible is not a historical account of things that actually happened."
My undergraduate degree is in Religion with an emphasis upon church history, Stenar, and no, it was not at a Christian college, either. I have also done work toward a master's degree, including reading and translating the Greek New Testament. So, I think I've read quite a number of scholarly works and have a fairly good grasp of what is being said re. the historicity of the New Testament. You ought not to jump to conclusions. Instead, I would have thought you'd actually answer my question, ie. "on what basis do you assert that Jesus is a fictional character?"
# posted by
:
9:18 PM
You said: "Actually, you're mistaken. You need to get out of church and read some real scholarly works. Almost all historians agree that the Bible is not a historical account of things that actually happened."
My undergraduate degree is in Religion with an emphasis upon church history, Stenar, and no, it was not at a Christian college, either. I have also done work toward a master's degree, including reading and translating the Greek New Testament. So, I think I've read quite a number of scholarly works and have a fairly good grasp of what is being said re. the historicity of the New Testament. You ought not to jump to conclusions. Instead, I would have thought you'd actually answer my question, ie. "on what basis do you assert that Jesus is a fictional character?"
# posted by
:
9:18 PM
Stenar
You said: "Jesus is a fictional character in a novel... and a pretty bad novel, too. So, it doesn't really matter if his character was wrong as he doesn't exist."
The Jewish opponents of Christianity did not consider Jesus to be a fictional character. He is referred to several times in the Babylonian Talmud for example. Why would these Jewish rabbis refer to Jesus as an historical person if He were merely a Christian fiction?
# posted by
:
9:41 PM
You said: "Jesus is a fictional character in a novel... and a pretty bad novel, too. So, it doesn't really matter if his character was wrong as he doesn't exist."
The Jewish opponents of Christianity did not consider Jesus to be a fictional character. He is referred to several times in the Babylonian Talmud for example. Why would these Jewish rabbis refer to Jesus as an historical person if He were merely a Christian fiction?
# posted by
:
9:41 PM
Again, you need to read some actual scholarly works on the subject.
references in the Talmud to various historical figures were said to be coded references to Jesus, despite Jewish insistence that the Talmud refers to other, actual persons. A prominent example is Balaam son of Beor, a pagan prophet who lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus, whose actions are portrayed in the Bible, in Numbers 22 through 31. The Talmud's harsh words against Balaam echo the Bible's own condemnation in Deuteronomy 23 and Nehemiah 13. Yet, these references were said to be secretly about Jesus. They were not about Jesus. Nowhere is Jesus mentioned by name in the Babylonian Talmud.
There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament.
# posted by Stenar
:
9:47 PM
references in the Talmud to various historical figures were said to be coded references to Jesus, despite Jewish insistence that the Talmud refers to other, actual persons. A prominent example is Balaam son of Beor, a pagan prophet who lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus, whose actions are portrayed in the Bible, in Numbers 22 through 31. The Talmud's harsh words against Balaam echo the Bible's own condemnation in Deuteronomy 23 and Nehemiah 13. Yet, these references were said to be secretly about Jesus. They were not about Jesus. Nowhere is Jesus mentioned by name in the Babylonian Talmud.
There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament.
# posted by
Stenar
:
9:47 PM
Stenar,
You said: "Again, you need to read some actual scholarly works on the subject."
Then you went on to cut and paste a paragraph into your blog from Wikipedia word-for-word as if they were your own!! Have you no shame? I'm surprised at you. Plagiarism and bad history all in one night. You disappoint me, Stenar. In addition to the Talmud, Jesus is mentioned at least twice by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his book "The Antiquities of the Jews." One of those places is highly contested and may have been changed over time by copyists in the Middle Ages. However, Josephus's reference to Jesus and His brother James, bishop of the Jerusalem Church is not contested. Neither are his references to others also found in the New Testament such as John the Baptist, for example. Your assertion that there is no reference to Jesus outside the New Testament is false. So, again I ask you: on what basis do you assert that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
10:11 PM
You said: "Again, you need to read some actual scholarly works on the subject."
Then you went on to cut and paste a paragraph into your blog from Wikipedia word-for-word as if they were your own!! Have you no shame? I'm surprised at you. Plagiarism and bad history all in one night. You disappoint me, Stenar. In addition to the Talmud, Jesus is mentioned at least twice by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his book "The Antiquities of the Jews." One of those places is highly contested and may have been changed over time by copyists in the Middle Ages. However, Josephus's reference to Jesus and His brother James, bishop of the Jerusalem Church is not contested. Neither are his references to others also found in the New Testament such as John the Baptist, for example. Your assertion that there is no reference to Jesus outside the New Testament is false. So, again I ask you: on what basis do you assert that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
10:11 PM
Stenar,
You said: "There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament."
Yet, as Dr. F.F. Bruce pointed out in his book "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 22, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus writing in his "Annals" around 115-117 A.D. wrote re. the Christians that "They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."
Stenar, Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian, not a New Testament author, yet he refers to Jesus Christ by name as an historical figure executed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Again I will ask my original question: on what basis do you assert that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
11:03 PM
You said: "There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament."
Yet, as Dr. F.F. Bruce pointed out in his book "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 22, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus writing in his "Annals" around 115-117 A.D. wrote re. the Christians that "They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."
Stenar, Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian, not a New Testament author, yet he refers to Jesus Christ by name as an historical figure executed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Again I will ask my original question: on what basis do you assert that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character?
# posted by
:
11:03 PM
Cornelius Tacitus was writing 110 years after the supposed death of Jesus. He can hardly be called a reliable witness of things that happened long before he was born. This is not proof that Jesus ever lived.
Pontius Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. Tacitus got that wrong, too.
# posted by Stenar
:
11:15 PM
Pontius Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. Tacitus got that wrong, too.
# posted by
Stenar
:
11:15 PM
Stenar,
You said earlier: "There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament."
I'm glad to see that you've changed your mind re. extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ. They most certainly do exist in both Jewish and Gentile writers. The question I hear you asking now is whether or not these references are reliable.
A point of correction, a question, and then a point of agreement are worthy of note. First, Jesus was crucified sometime around 30 A.D. Tacitus wrote some 85 years later, not 110 years later. Nevertheless, because he was writing a critique of the reign of Ceasar Nero in a work he, as a former Roman governor of Asia, and as an historian with a reputation to protect, would not have made references to the past lightly, particularly in the heart of the Empire where anyone with access to the archives could investigate what he had written. Tacitus was writing about the Great Fire and how the Christians, named for Christ their leader, were scapegoated for it. His peers and other members of the aristocracy could have readily checked his assertions - and he knew it. Besides, Tacitus was only a boy when the Great Fire occurred. So second, why assume that he did no research prior to writing this statement?
Third, Stenar you are quite correct re. Pontius Pilate being a prefect rather than a procurator. The title changed for the Roman governor at some point after the earthly ministry of Jesus and the time Tacitus wrote his "Annals." So, on that point we can both agree, even though we still disagree on the larger point: the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Stenar, Tacitus is not the only Roman leader to mention Jesus Christ. For example, Plinius Secundus the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (112 A.D.), was persecuting and killing the Christians there. Because he was killing so many, he sought advice from the Emperor Trajan as to how to proceed. In his "Epistles," X, 96, he wrote "...they [the Christians] maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."
Stenar, here again we find a Roman official making reference to Christ outside the New Testament some 70 to 80 years after His earthly ministry. And there are many others I could quote as well. Would it prove that Jesus is the Son of God? No. But again to quote the late Dr. F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, UK:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."
Stenar, your assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction and not an historical person is false. No credible historian would countenance such an assertion. Even the enemies of Jesus who opposed Christianity within the Roman Empire in ancient times, both Jew and Gentile, did not doubt His existence. And they were much closer to the events than we are. Further, I would challenge you today to read the entry on Jesus of Nazareth in The Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly something we could attribute to Jerry Falwell. In the copy of the article I have at my disposal, taken from the 15th edition, 1974, they stated:
"These independent accounts [outlined previously] prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." Billy Graham didn't write that, Stenar, nor did Pat Robertson. I respect you; you're obviously an intelligent, thoughtful individual, but your assertion is false. With all due respect, Stenar, your assertion is false.
P.S. - You have not responded yet to what I posted earlier re. the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Why not? He actually lived in Palestine during the 1st century and would have been a contemporary, though hardly an acquaintance, of Jesus's brother James, Bishop of Jerusalem.
# posted by
:
1:42 AM
You said earlier: "There is no reference to Jesus outside of the fiction known as the New Testament."
I'm glad to see that you've changed your mind re. extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ. They most certainly do exist in both Jewish and Gentile writers. The question I hear you asking now is whether or not these references are reliable.
A point of correction, a question, and then a point of agreement are worthy of note. First, Jesus was crucified sometime around 30 A.D. Tacitus wrote some 85 years later, not 110 years later. Nevertheless, because he was writing a critique of the reign of Ceasar Nero in a work he, as a former Roman governor of Asia, and as an historian with a reputation to protect, would not have made references to the past lightly, particularly in the heart of the Empire where anyone with access to the archives could investigate what he had written. Tacitus was writing about the Great Fire and how the Christians, named for Christ their leader, were scapegoated for it. His peers and other members of the aristocracy could have readily checked his assertions - and he knew it. Besides, Tacitus was only a boy when the Great Fire occurred. So second, why assume that he did no research prior to writing this statement?
Third, Stenar you are quite correct re. Pontius Pilate being a prefect rather than a procurator. The title changed for the Roman governor at some point after the earthly ministry of Jesus and the time Tacitus wrote his "Annals." So, on that point we can both agree, even though we still disagree on the larger point: the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Stenar, Tacitus is not the only Roman leader to mention Jesus Christ. For example, Plinius Secundus the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (112 A.D.), was persecuting and killing the Christians there. Because he was killing so many, he sought advice from the Emperor Trajan as to how to proceed. In his "Epistles," X, 96, he wrote "...they [the Christians] maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."
Stenar, here again we find a Roman official making reference to Christ outside the New Testament some 70 to 80 years after His earthly ministry. And there are many others I could quote as well. Would it prove that Jesus is the Son of God? No. But again to quote the late Dr. F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, UK:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."
Stenar, your assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction and not an historical person is false. No credible historian would countenance such an assertion. Even the enemies of Jesus who opposed Christianity within the Roman Empire in ancient times, both Jew and Gentile, did not doubt His existence. And they were much closer to the events than we are. Further, I would challenge you today to read the entry on Jesus of Nazareth in The Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly something we could attribute to Jerry Falwell. In the copy of the article I have at my disposal, taken from the 15th edition, 1974, they stated:
"These independent accounts [outlined previously] prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." Billy Graham didn't write that, Stenar, nor did Pat Robertson. I respect you; you're obviously an intelligent, thoughtful individual, but your assertion is false. With all due respect, Stenar, your assertion is false.
P.S. - You have not responded yet to what I posted earlier re. the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Why not? He actually lived in Palestine during the 1st century and would have been a contemporary, though hardly an acquaintance, of Jesus's brother James, Bishop of Jerusalem.
# posted by
:
1:42 AM
Jesus said: "I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that My Father will grant you whatever you ask in My Name." John 16:23
(Nonsense!)
Jesus said "The words I speak are not my own but the Father's." John 8:28
(Bullcrap!)
"He drove out the spirits with a word and restored to health all who were sick." Mathew 8:16b
(Yeah, right!!!)
# posted by Donnerstag
:
6:21 AM
(Nonsense!)
Jesus said "The words I speak are not my own but the Father's." John 8:28
(Bullcrap!)
"He drove out the spirits with a word and restored to health all who were sick." Mathew 8:16b
(Yeah, right!!!)
# posted by
Donnerstag
:
6:21 AM
Jesus said,"I will pay you back the five bucks." He never did.
Straggler!
Ps. loved the movie
# posted by sambro75
:
11:15 AM
Straggler!
Ps. loved the movie
# posted by
sambro75
:
11:15 AM
jesus was a real guy, but he was wrong. all the stuff he said, about god, all that stuff, was wrong
sorry peeps
# posted by
:
7:20 PM
sorry peeps
# posted by
:
7:20 PM
Hey this is the awesome t-shirt...I liked it and its superb...good work...keep it up...:)
T-shirts
# posted by Jack
:
10:01 AM
Post a Comment
T-shirts
# posted by
Jack
:
10:01 AM
<< Home
T-ShirtCountdown.com Webring
[ Previous T-Shirt ] [ Previous T-Shirt (In this category) ] [ Random T-Shirt ] [ Next T-Shirt (In this category) ] [ Next T-Shirt ]
[ Previous T-Shirt ] [ Previous T-Shirt (In this category) ] [ Random T-Shirt ] [ Next T-Shirt (In this category) ] [ Next T-Shirt ]