NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...

Tell me what you think.

Or he could never have existed.

Tell me what you think.

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.

Or he could never have existed.

Or he could have existed, but been some normal guy, who didn't walk on water.

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know how he turned water to wine.
He could of just made it taste like wine...

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.
I'm much more interested in that

Or he could never have existed.
OR, he could have existed, but just have been a hippie pacifist and overall nice guy. And then some whackos tried to make him divine or something.

He was on a lake, the people who saw him were on a boat, the same boat he was on before he went for a wuick stroll. It's a lot more likely that the whole story is, http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif
yup

Or he could have existed, but been some normal guy, who didn't walk on water.
We know he existed but we don't know if he was a proghet.

And why did he never tell us how to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish? Could make all the difference to Africa.

And why did he never tell us how to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish? Could make all the difference to Africa.
You know those paper thin peaces of bread they give you in church? that could be it....HE WAS FROM THE FUTURE!!!!

And why did he never tell us how to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish? Could make all the difference to Africa.
I bet they'd prefer the water into wine.

I bet they'd prefer the water into wine.
one word....whocares?

Or he could have existed, but been some normal guy, who didn't walk on water.
Or he could have been the LG of Biblical times. That would explain alot.

We know he existed but we don't know if he was a proghet.

A Proghet? What the heck is a proghet?

one word....whocares?
Who cares about your theory about jesus walking on water? It's horribly misinformed.

Two words: JET PACK.

Its just a fairy story, doesnt really need much analysis or investigation.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...
Of course, everyone else was in a boat. IN THE WATER!

Or he could never have existed.
Or maybe he did exist and he did walk on water. I guess it's just hard for some people to believe. To each his own, I guess.

he was thinking of something else at the moment and didnt realized where he was walking, thats all. ıf he realized he was walking on water there would be a cartoon scene with Jesus shaking his arms like mad and falling into sea with a large splash.

Zukariaa']Or maybe he did exist and he did walk on water. I guess it's just hard for some people to believe. To each his own, I guess.

So he disobeyed the laws of physics?

he was thinking of something else at the moment and didnt realized where he was walking, thats all. ıf he realized he was walking on water there would be a cartoon scene with Jesus shaking his arms like mad and falling into sea with a large splash.

And that's precisely what happened to St Peter.
Matthew 8:25


I'm still burning to know about the water to wine thing.
And Pilsener. Most of all, Pilsener.

Zukariaa']Or maybe he did exist and he did walk on water. I guess it's just hard for some people to believe. To each his own, I guess.

Yeah, it's hard to believe. Especially since there is no proof that he did it.

he prolly was an illusionist.

he COULD NOT have really walked on water.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
We all know the story, except you apparently. :)

he prolly was an illusionist.

he COULD NOT have really walked on water.
Now that I think of it, he could have, technically speaking. If you walk in a swiiming pool, then when you put your foot down, you're stepping, or walking, on the water under your foot.

Naw, he was a giant water-strider strategically dressed to look like a human being.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Waterstrider_bw.GIF

Naw, he was a giant water-strider strategically dressed to look like a human being.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Waterstrider_bw.GIF

a.k.a. Jesus Beetle.

Is there a water-wine-beetle?

Naw, he was a giant water-strider strategically dressed to look like a human being.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Waterstrider_bw.GIF

How clever of him...

Tell me what you think.
I think Jesus was actually a ninja, and His kung fu was Good.

Naw, he was a giant water-strider strategically dressed to look like a human being.
That's so Dr. Who.

I think Jesus was actually a ninja, and His kung fu was Good.

Well I think that PENIS,

So he disobeyed the laws of physics?
Sure, why not? He was Jesus. You know? Son of God? I think that exempts you from things like "physics". Pfft.

And no, that wasn't sarcastic. :)

That's so Dr. Who.
The Doctor and I see eye-to-eye on a number of things...

And Rose Tyler is Mary Magdalen.

Well I think that PENIS,
How does one think a Penis? Is it a sort of telekinetic fondling?

How does one think a Penis? Is it a sort of telekinetic fondling?

Nah, that's all what's in his head.

(strange, should be further down, really)

How does one think a Penis? Is it a sort of telekinetic fondling?
Psi-sturbation.

And Rose Tyler is Mary Magdalen.
How could Jesus not want to fuck Rose silly?

How could the Doctor, for that matter?

In fact - pitted against each other, who'd come out on top? The last living Time Lord or the giant water-strider wearing a costume beard and authentic period clothing? And who would Rose Tyler prefer to wriggle around with in a tub full of cherry Jell-o?

Hmm?

How could Jesus not want to fuck Rose silly?

How could the Doctor, for that matter?

In fact - pitted against each other, who'd come out on top? The last living Time Lord or the giant water-strider wearing a costume beard and authentic period clothing? And who would Rose Tyler prefer to wriggle around with in a tub full of cherry Jell-o?

Hmm?

Read Dan Brown. It's all clearly explained. The Jesus-Doctor's and Rose-Magdalen's children went back in time, built a Tardis, visited the Giant water striding spaghetti monster and all could have been sugar and spice had it not been for the Daleks. They're a creation of Opus Dei, btw.

Zukariaa']Sure, why not? He was Jesus. You know? Son of God? I think that exempts you from things like "physics". Pfft.

And no, that wasn't sarcastic. :)

I wish I could belive that but I can't.It just makes no sense with science and physics.

Saying "penis" in a conversation like this was totally childish, unneeded and random, right?


Just like the conversation itself! Irony!


Sometime's I'm too smart for even myself, so I think I'll repeat, just for excercise:


PENIS

I wish I could belive that but I can't.It just makes no sense with science and physics.

Credo quia absurdum est.
I believe because it is absurd.
Tertullian

When you've worked out how you do that, let me know how.

and all could have been sugar and spice had it not been for the Daleks. They're a creation of Opus Dei, btw.
Ya mean to say Davros

http://www.twyn-y-berllan.com/themes/Images/Davros.jpg

was a Catholic?

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.
well he was the human incarnation of god

Maybe the 'water' was actually custard.

*nods sagely*

I think he walked on ice.

you might as well ask how Jack grew the beanstalk all the way up to the sky(where giants were living in some sort of levitating house) in one day.

Maybe he pissed himself and walked through the puddle...

Read Dan Brown. It's all clearly explained. The Jesus-Doctor's and Rose-Magdalen's children went back in time, built a Tardis, visited the Giant water striding spaghetti monster and all could have been sugar and spice had it not been for the Daleks. They're a creation of Opus Dei, btw.

You can;t forget they find the evidence in the Gospel of the Speggeti monster... ANd after finding this out they never tell anyone.

I wish I could belive that but I can't.It just makes no sense with science and physics.

Science is a differnet field fo study with different sets of premisis and ideology. THis is why all Religion vs Science discussions are destined to end in failure. You can not debate something without a similar language and an agreed upon worldview.

I read a theory of this some time ago, but I haven't the faintest idea what it was about. Damn. Maybe he wore styrofoam shoes.

Tell me what you think.


It was a miracle.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...
Ok problem. First of all, it was evening. Second, there were waves. Third, "in the midst of the sea". Fourth, yes, this was 2000 years ago. But these people weren't stupid. And they understood their everyday environment very well. Probably better than most modern people. Either believe it or not. Don't try to justify it. It's pointless.

OR, that Jerome's translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic into Latin was filled with many mistranslations and mistakes.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...
im thinking its more of a bar story

st peter went to rome to preach.

its pretty hard for an uneducated former fisherman to get much notice in the capital city of the western world. sure his own few followers look up to him but they are nothing in comparison to the huge population of the eternal city.

so perhaps peter took to telling a few "big fish" tales in the bars of rome. you know how it happens, he starts talking about how he and "the son of god" were best friends. how they hung out every day for YEARS until jesus had to go take up administrative duties in heaven (probably glossing over that whole crucified thing--it was only 5 bad days in more than 3 years of preaching).

the other bar bums give him a hard time over his stories and want more details and its soooooo hard to compete with the tales of the pagan mysteries and suddenly he's claiming that jesus AND he walked on water one day.....

it just happens.

Ok problem. First of all, it was evening. Second, there were waves. Third, "in the midst of the sea". Fourth, yes, this was 2000 years ago. But these people weren't stupid. And they understood their everyday environment very well. Probably better than most modern people. Either believe it or not. Don't try to justify it. It's pointless.

None of that excludes my custard based explanation.

im thinking its more of a bar story

st peter went to rome to preach.

its pretty hard for an uneducated former fisherman to get much notice in the capital city of the western world. sure his own few followers look up to him but they are nothing in comparison to the huge population of the eternal city.

so perhaps peter took to telling a few "big fish" tales in the bars of rome. you know how it happens, he starts talking about how he and "the son of god" were best friends. how they hung out every day for YEARS until jesus had to go take up administrative duties in heaven (probably glossing over that whole crucified thing--it was only 5 bad days in more than 3 years of preaching).

the other bar bums give him a hard time over his stories and want more details and its soooooo hard to compete with the tales of the pagan mysteries and suddenly he's claiming that jesus AND he walked on water one day.....

it just happens.
Actually, that doesn't work because there is no evidence whatsoever that good St. Peter ever went to Rome and some circumstantial evidence that he didn't.

None of that excludes my custard based explanation.
How many Hebrews does it take to eat a sea full of custard?

Read Dan Brown. It's all clearly explained. The Jesus-Doctor's and Rose-Magdalen's children went back in time, built a Tardis, visited the Giant water striding spaghetti monster and all could have been sugar and spice had it not been for the Daleks. They're a creation of Opus Dei, btw.

All hail the unified religion theory!

Credo quia absurdum est.
I believe because it is absurd.
Tertullian

When you've worked out how you do that, let me know how.
We should believe Jesus walked on water because it's impossible for a human to walk unaided on the surface of a body of water? How ridiculous.

How many Hebrews does it take to eat a sea full of custard?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Enough for the winter and to make a tiny profit, I'd assume.

We should believe Jesus walked on water because it's impossible for a human to walk unaided on the surface of a body of water? How ridiculous.

The Very idea of a miracle in it's most basic form is a divine act that violates natural law. But again, the faithful have a different worldview from those with a more secular worldview. Unless you decide to agree to some common ideaology and peramiters to discuss such matters, you will ultimately fail.

The Very idea of a miracle in it's most basic form is a divine act that violates natural law. But again, the faithful have a different worldview from those with a more secular worldview. Unless you decide to agree to some common ideaology and peramiters to discuss such matters, you will ultimately fail.
:D Yer fuuuuuunnny.

:D Yer fuuuuuunnny.

AM I wrong and if so please tell me how?

AM I wrong and if so please tell me how?

You're not wrong, but I would point something out.

The idea of naturalism, and natural law, came a bit later. People in antiquity didn't have a dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural world in many senses. Thus, a miracle was just as natural to them as waking up every morning, except less common.

Of course there are exceptions to this, but we have to keep in mind that they had little concept of secularism or naturalism. People who believed that demons were what caused illness, instead of germ theory, had a much easier time believing in miracles as part of daily life as well.

AM I wrong and if so please tell me how?
No. You're fine. I was just talking about making basic assumptions to have an argument on here. I've tried before. You still have to reign in the flamers. The implied assumptions at the beginning of this post were: Jesus lived. Jesus walked on water(in one form or another). We still have people disputing Jesus's life and the fact that He walked on water or the accuracy of the recorded "history" of it. So I point and laugh at your ignorance. :D

You're not wrong, but I would point something out.

The idea of naturalism, and natural law, came a bit later. People in antiquity didn't have a dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural world in many senses. Thus, a miracle was just as natural to them as waking up every morning, except less common.

Of course there are exceptions to this, but we have to keep in mind that they had little concept of secularism or naturalism. People who believed that demons were what caused illness, instead of germ theory, had a much easier time believing in miracles as part of daily life as well.

In the historical context what you are saying is true. However since most people here seem to only understand modern concepts I thought I would use a paradigm they would understand. David Hume's definition of a miracle was simple enough to bridge both sides of the arguement.

Maybe bamboo pontoons were involved...

Actually, that doesn't work because there is no evidence whatsoever that good St. Peter ever went to Rome and some circumstantial evidence that he didn't.
well yes it does presuppose that st peter and jesus ever existed at all. i find it unlikely that jesus existed in any meaningful way so i must also find it unlikely that peter ever existed in any meaningful way.

so take it one step farther back and have some poor christian preacher trying tomake his way in rome and talking to the rest of the bar flies about how really great christianity is.....

pretty soon, in order to compete with the stories of the orgies of the pagan mysteries hes talking about jesus and peter walking on water... not all that great compared to some hotbabe having sex with the incarnation of a pagan god but even back then christians were a bit prudish.

well yes it does presuppose that st peter and jesus ever existed at all. i find it unlikely that jesus existed in any meaningful way so i must also find it unlikely that peter ever existed in any meaningful way.

so take it one step farther back and have some poor christian preacher trying tomake his way in rome and talking to the rest of the bar flies about how really great christianity is.....

pretty soon, in order to compete with the stories of the orgies of the pagan mysteries hes talking about jesus and peter walking on water... not all that great compared to some hotbabe having sex with the incarnation of a pagan god but even back then christians were a bit prudish.

We do have the Body of Saint Peter. He is in a tomb under St. Peters Balista. A year or 2 ago they went down thewre and found the remains of a man who was crucified upside down, in accordance to how peter died in "The Acts According to Peter" So there is evidence to sugest that Peter did exist, unless you wanna call ita Catholic Conspiracy. The show was aired on the Discovery Channel Also archiologist found near the Sea of Galiee a house that early christains turned into a church that was believed to be Peters house. As t hey survayed the floor they eventually found fish hooks, which gives evidence to the fact that Peter was a fisherman, again in acordance tothe gospels.

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.

Electric Lemonade makes its debut.

a.k.a. Jesus Beetle.

Is there a water-wine-beetle?

Hey, Turtle name me some vegetables. (Cookie for whoever gets the reference)

I can't remember where (Discovery Channel I think) but there was some documentry that went on about Jesus walking on water or parting the Red Sea or something. Whatever it was, they figured it might have actually happenned, studying fossil records and other ancient stuff (like dinosaur poop) they figured an earthquake had happenned way out the sea or ocean (details are quite vague, sorry). This earthquake being all earthy and quakey sucked the water of a shallow portion of the sea providing like 6 hours or so of relatively dry land between both sides of the sea. So Jesus and friends crossed it (a couple hours ahead of them Romans) and were all like, "hey, we beat the system." So the Romans came charging after, but their luck ran out after the aquaduct so they got hit with with a really low (5-6m) but long (4km) tidal wave which ruined their day and waterlogged their togas.

And why did he never tell us how to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish? Could make all the difference to Africa.You know what our R.E. teacher said it might be?

Loads of people brought food, but nobody felt like sharing at first. When J&tD started to distribute the bread and fish, the ones with food generally felt guilty enough not to take any from the baskets/whatever being passed around, and might have even added a bit of their own stash, thus providing an awful lot more than the reputed number of loaves and fishes to those who did not have any and chose to partake...

(That, and the fact that it's a story, whose telling and retelling before being put down on parchment could easily have become typically "fisherman's tale"-exagerated...)

I like in the Family Guy how they portrayed him in a flashback to be just a simple magician.
Did he walk on the dead sea? cos' that's all salt.
and water to wine? wel....he could've invented cordial, lol.

And why did he never tell us how to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish? Could make all the difference to Africa.

All he did was share what he had and because he was held in such high esteem, low and behold, everyone else pulled out what they had previously denied having (had planned NOT to share) and shared. The miracle was that with a single action turned a throng of selfish greedy people into a throng of sharing, unconcerned people.

No. You're fine. I was just talking about making basic assumptions to have an argument on here. I've tried before. You still have to reign in the flamers. The implied assumptions at the beginning of this post were: Jesus lived. Jesus walked on water(in one form or another). We still have people disputing Jesus's life and the fact that He walked on water or the accuracy of the recorded "history" of it. So I point and laugh at your ignorance. :D

Actually, the presumed assumptions in the beginning were that Jesus lived and that he couldn't have actually walked on water so there must be another explanation. This makes it impossible for anyone who has a christian worldview and secular worldview to even debate this because you are coming at it from different basic assumptions. One that Jesus walking on water was a divine miracle, and the other that Jesus, if he existed, was just a normal guy and couldn't have walked on water so there must be another explanation.

Hey, Turtle name me some vegetables. (Cookie for whoever gets the reference)

I can't remember where (Discovery Channel I think) but there was some documentry that went on about Jesus walking on water or parting the Red Sea or something. Whatever it was, they figured it might have actually happenned, studying fossil records and other ancient stuff (like dinosaur poop) they figured an earthquake had happenned way out the sea or ocean (details are quite vague, sorry). This earthquake being all earthy and quakey sucked the water of a shallow portion of the sea providing like 6 hours or so of relatively dry land between both sides of the sea. So Jesus and friends crossed it (a couple hours ahead of them Romans) and were all like, "hey, we beat the system." So the Romans came charging after, but their luck ran out after the aquaduct so they got hit with with a really low (5-6m) but long (4km) tidal wave which ruined their day and waterlogged their togas.

Wasn't that Moses???

Wasn't that Moses???

and weren't those also the Egyptians?

We do have the Body of Saint Peter. He is in a tomb under St. Peters Balista. A year or 2 ago they went down thewre and found the remains of a man who was crucified upside down, in accordance to how peter died in "The Acts According to Peter" So there is evidence to sugest that Peter did exist, unless you wanna call ita Catholic Conspiracy. The show was aired on the Discovery Channel Also archiologist found near the Sea of Galiee a house that early christains turned into a church that was believed to be Peters house. As t hey survayed the floor they eventually found fish hooks, which gives evidence to the fact that Peter was a fisherman, again in acordance tothe gospels.
yeah theres no way THAT could be faked.

i have a piece of the true cross that i could sell you for a VERY reasonable price....

The Very idea of a miracle in it's most basic form is a divine act that violates natural law. But again, the faithful have a different worldview from those with a more secular worldview. Unless you decide to agree to some common ideaology and peramiters to discuss such matters, you will ultimately fail.
I think divine poweres would count as being aided. That or insanely bouyant sandals and a great balance.

yeah theres no way THAT could be faked.

i have a piece of the true cross that i could sell you for a VERY reasonable price....

lol scarcasm is a beautiful thing. Especailly when the documentary was done by and funded by the national geographic society. Yep and their team of achiologist, all pawns of the "great christian lie..." Please come with a retort that is not an attempt to flame please. I understand if you have faith that Jesus and his apostles did not exist, just state that instead of trying to cover up that belief in scarcasm.

All he did was share what he had and because he was held in such high esteem, low and behold, everyone else pulled out what they had previously denied having (had planned NOT to share) and shared. The miracle was that with a single action turned a throng of selfish greedy people into a throng of sharing, unconcerned people.

Now THAT is what I'd call a miracle.

We do have the Body of Saint Peter. He is in a tomb under St. Peters Balista. A year or 2 ago they went down thewre and found the remains of a man who was crucified upside down, in accordance to how peter died in "The Acts According to Peter" So there is evidence to sugest that Peter did exist, unless you wanna call ita Catholic Conspiracy. The show was aired on the Discovery Channel Also archiologist found near the Sea of Galiee a house that early christains turned into a church that was believed to be Peters house. As t hey survayed the floor they eventually found fish hooks, which gives evidence to the fact that Peter was a fisherman, again in acordance tothe gospels.
So the found a fisherman's house near a sea, a sea complete with fish, and this fisherman's house near a sea with fish in it had fishhooks lying about, and somehow this means there really was a St. Peter?

So the found a fisherman's house near a sea, a sea complete with fish, and this fisherman's house near a sea with fish in it had fishhooks lying about, and somehow this means there really was a St. Peter?

I never said it was but in the house they found 1st and 2nd century graphiti that shows that early christains believed that was his house. I never claimed it was or was not. Also again the body in the tomb of Peter that indeed was crucified upside down, and dates back to the time he was supposed to live, and as well corisponds to the recored way he died in The Acts accordingto Peter. COuld it be someone else, sure but there is evidence that Peter existed. Ultimately it is your decision to believe what you want to, and what you believe is of little concern to me. I just hope that you are truly objective, and do not just reject notions out of bias.

I never said it was but in the house they found 1st and 2nd century graphiti that shows that early christains believed that was his house. I never claimed it was or was not.


PETRVS WUZ ERE?

PETRVS WUZ ERE?

Lol it was a little more elaborite than that :) Good one though :)

Lol it was a little more elaborite than that :) Good one though :)

Cheers.

HIC EST DOMUS QVA HABITAVIT SANCTISSIMVS PETRVS NOMINE SIMON NATVS PISCATOR GALILAEAE DISCIPVLVS IESV CHRISTI PRIMVS PRINCEPSQVE ATQVE FVNDAMENTVM ECCLESIAE VNAE SANCTAE

like that, maybe


Sorry for all those caps, but that's how they wrote in the Roman Empire.

Cheers.

HIC EST DOMUS QVA HABITAVIT SANCTISSIMVS PETRVS NOMINE SIMON NATVS PISCATOR GALILAEAE DISCIPVLVS IESV CHRISTI PRIMVS PRINCEPSQVE ATQVE FVNDAMENTVM ECCLESIAE VNAE SANCTAE

like that, maybe


Sorry for all those caps, but that's how they wrote in the Roman Empire.

You are versed in Latin I am impressed.

lol scarcasm is a beautiful thing. Especailly when the documentary was done by and funded by the national geographic society. Yep and their team of achiologist, all pawns of the "great christian lie..." Please come with a retort that is not an attempt to flame please. I understand if you have faith that Jesus and his apostles did not exist, just state that instead of trying to cover up that belief in scarcasm.
no you really DO need to think this through

first of all, from my brief looking on the net, i believe you have 2 different stories mixed together

the discovery channel one was of the finding of the tomb of ST PAUL. no remains were found (it wasnt clear to me if it was because they werent allowed to open the tomb to look or if they did look and it was empty)

the tomb of st peter was found by vatican achaeologists back in the 40s. as one might expect of remains that are almost 2000 years old, all that was there were disarticulated bones (the heads of st peter and st paul are supposed to be held in some other church). they were mixed with the bones of other people and some animals (if that is to be taken seriously, its so hard to know what is true and what is anti-catholic propaganda).

old bones are old bones. its impossible to tell what belonged to whom when the remains are 2000 years old. what one might LIKE to believe is quite different from what can be proven to be true.

I never said it was but in the house they found 1st and 2nd century graphiti that shows that early christains believed that was his house. I never claimed it was or was not. Also again the body in the tomb of Peter that indeed was crucified upside down, and dates back to the time he was supposed to live, and as well corisponds to the recored way he died in The Acts accordingto Peter. COuld it be someone else, sure but there is evidence that Peter existed. Ultimately it is your decision to believe what you want to, and what you believe is of little concern to me. I just hope that you are truly objective, and do not just reject notions out of bias.
Well the portion of the arguement you presented and the conculsions you said were drawn did not match up. Since there is further evidence it makes more sense now.

no you really DO need to think this through

first of all, from my brief looking on the net, i believe you have 2 different stories mixed together

the discovery channel one was of the finding of the tomb of ST PAUL. no remains were found (it wasnt clear to me if it was because they werent allowed to open the tomb to look or if they did look and it was empty)

the tomb of st peter was found by vatican achaeologists back in the 40s. as one might expect of remains that are almost 2000 years old, all that was there were disarticulated bones (the heads of st peter and st paul are supposed to be held in some other church). they were mixed with the bones of other people and some animals (if that is to be taken seriously, its so hard to know what is true and what is anti-catholic propaganda).
old bones are old bones. its impossible to tell what belonged to whom when the remains are 2000 years old. what one might LIKE to believe is quite different from what can be proven to be true.

I never claimed a "proven Truth". Yes the gravesite was indeed in a graveyard. Peter atthe time of his death was a criminal of the Empire and yes his tomb was indeed in a common graveyard. But they did infact find a body that was crucified upside down. Please do not read into waht i am typing more than the words. Can we do a DNA test to prove it was indeed Peter. Without a sampe to compare it to no. COuld the body they found be another crimnal who was crucified upside down yes. All I was stating is their is evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but still there is evidence. BTW it is very difficult to "concusivly prove" much about history that occured almsot 2000 years ago from a people that had little power or money or influence. By the time of Peters death Christainity was a small religious ideology, persceuted by the Romans as crimnals. Also there was the 1st century "tombstone" that claimed that this was the tomb of Peter. But again this is will probably be taken as circumstancial evidence.

Well the portion of the arguement you presented and the conculsions you said were drawn did not match up. Since there is further evidence it makes more sense now.

According to the logics of "We don't know if St Peter really existed", I also now question the existence of Hannibal (no bones found), Caesar (where are the bones), Themistocles (not a bone), Horace (bones? negative), Alexander (not a knuckle), Plato (not a splinter), etc. etc. ad infinitum.


All made up by...Rosicrucians? Templars? Freemasons? Dan Brown?

It was a pleasure to debate and discuss these ideas. I need to log off now, many things to do, but it was a pleasure to type with all of you.

I think divine poweres would count as being aided. That or insanely bouyant sandals and a great balance.

Yeah, maybe he had on a pair of CROCS! :p

I never claimed a "proven Truth". Yes the gravesite was indeed in a graveyard. Peter atthe time of his death was a criminal of the Empire and yes his tomb was indeed in a common graveyard. But they did infact find a body that was crucified upside down. Please do not read into waht i am typing more than the words. Can we do a DNA test to prove it was indeed Peter. Without a sampe to compare it to no. COuld the body they found be another crimnal who was crucified upside down yes. All I was stating is their is evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but still there is evidence. BTW it is very difficult to "concusivly prove" much about history that occured almsot 2000 years ago from a people that had little power or money or influence. By the time of Peters death Christainity was a small religious ideology, persceuted by the Romans as crimnals. Also there was the 1st century "tombstone" that claimed that this was the tomb of Peter. But again this is will probably be taken as circumstancial evidence.
I wonder how they came to the conclusion the body was crucified upside down. Surely it would look the same as one crucified the right way up?

According to the logics of "We don't know if St Peter really existed", I also now question the existence of Hannibal (no bones found), Caesar (where are the bones), Themistocles (not a bone), Horace (bones? negative), Alexander (not a knuckle), Plato (not a splinter), etc. etc. ad infinitum.


All made up by...Rosicrucians? Templars? Freemasons? Dan Brown?
We don't know if any of those people exist. Though, like St. Peter, there is evidence that they did exist.

I wonder how they came to the conclusion the body was crucified upside down. Surely it would look the same as one crucified the right way up?

Burst blood vessels in the head.

So the found a fisherman's house near a sea, a sea complete with fish, and this fisherman's house near a sea with fish in it had fishhooks lying about, and somehow this means there really was a St. Peter?

LOL I know. I am greatly amused by how every archeological find is evidence that some ancient myth was true. Someday, hundreds of years from now, they will unearth a sewage tank, find a couple household items in it, call it a "Hobbit Hole" and use it to prove that the Tolkien Triologies are scripture.

I never claimed a "proven Truth". Yes the gravesite was indeed in a graveyard. Peter atthe time of his death was a criminal of the Empire and yes his tomb was indeed in a common graveyard. But they did infact find a body that was crucified upside down. Please do not read into waht i am typing more than the words. Can we do a DNA test to prove it was indeed Peter. Without a sampe to compare it to no. COuld the body they found be another crimnal who was crucified upside down yes. All I was stating is their is evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but still there is evidence. BTW it is very difficult to "concusivly prove" much about history that occured almsot 2000 years ago from a people that had little power or money or influence. By the time of Peters death Christainity was a small religious ideology, persceuted by the Romans as crimnals. Also there was the 1st century "tombstone" that claimed that this was the tomb of Peter. But again this is will probably be taken as circumstancial evidence.

i would like a LINK to a site, preferrably a catholic one, that says that these remains were of a man who had been crucified upside down.

i did not find this assertion in my quick look through the net. all i found was that the vatican had found what they eventually decided were the remains of st peter under st peters basilica. the best they could say was that they included the bones of a man who was in his 60s when he died.

so where are you getting this crucified upside down part?

Burst blood vessels in the head.
Would burst blood vessels leave a lasting mark on the skull?

According to the logics of "We don't know if St Peter really existed", I also now question the existence of Hannibal (no bones found), Caesar (where are the bones), Themistocles (not a bone), Horace (bones? negative), Alexander (not a knuckle), Plato (not a splinter), etc. etc. ad infinitum.


All made up by...Rosicrucians? Templars? Freemasons? Dan Brown?We don't know if any of those people exist. Though, like St. Peter, there is evidence that they did exist.

Each of the above has contemporary historical sources that document their existence. St. Peter has none, just like Jesus has none.

Not to mention the fact that the existence of St. Peter, as well as Jesus, is disputed in modern scholarship (Freke & Gandy, Pagals, etc.), whereas the existence of the above mentioned is not disputed.

We may never be able to know in that sense, but there is far more historical evidence for the above mentioned figures than for figures from religious myth, like Jesus or St. Peter. Finding physical remains is actually less important than contemporary historical collaberation.

LOL I know. I am greatly amused by house every archeological find is evidence that some ancient myth was true. Someday, hundreds of years from now, they will unearth a sewage tank, find a couple household items in it, call it a "Hobbit Hole" and use it to prove that the Tolkien Triologies are scripture.
Blasphemer, how dare you doubt the truth of the Holy Books.

First of all, we have substantial evidence that he has existed. The Romans had a vast bureaucracy and it is mentioned in it that one Jesus from Nazareth was put to death by Pilatus.

This proves nothing about the existance of the historical figure of Jesus, let alone about the spiritual person Jesus. But it proves that there was a Jesus that was crucified by Pilatus for trying to incite riots.

Crucifiction was a natural way to execute people. It was also used on the survivors of Spartacus riots and was considered one of the more humiliating ways to die.

As for the walking on water: the "bible" is 4 records of the life of one Jesus of Nazareth, written by his followers, not historians or critics. They were all written long after the death of Jesus and the people who knew him. They are thus mostly a collection of stories about Jesus.

Now imagine you claiming that someone was the son of God. And you know you might convince people by telling them about many miracles. What would you do? You would make up something fantastic that no man can do.

Heal the sick, the possessed, walk on water, turning water into wine, seeing him talk to long dead prophets...

There was a man named Jesus from Nazareth and he was crucified. He probably was some sort of rabbi, like there were hundreds at the time.

Did he spread the message of love all people? We do not know. Maybe he was just used as a convenient carrier of that message by the people who later wrote about him.

We do not know. And it's very unlikely that the story about him walking on water was anything else than just a way to impress people with stories by his later followers.

Would burst blood vessels leave a lasting mark on the skull?

Good question. Now we need a medic.

Good question. Now we need a medic.
Fass is a doctor. Someone start talking about a gay conspiracy and he'll show up and we can ask him.

First of all, we have substantial evidence that he has existed. The Romans had a vast bureaucracy and it is mentioned in it that one Jesus from Nazareth was put to death by Pilatus.

This proves nothing about the existance of the historical figure of Jesus, let alone about the spiritual person Jesus. But it proves that there was a Jesus that was crucified by Pilatus for trying to incite riots.

You're confusing the "vast bureaucracy" with spurious mentions of a "Christos" (nowhere does it say Jesus of Nazareth) crucified by Pilate in Tacitus. However, there are no contemporary writings of Jesus. The Roman historians like Tacitus lived decades, in many cases centuries, after the suppossed death of Jesus.

They also wrote about myth as if it were history. There was no concept of "history" as we have today - works of this type fall under the genre of "lives." Tacitus also wrote about the god Serapis as a historical figure, who interacted with the Emperor Vespasian on a regular basis. Should we believe that Jesus existed any more than Serapis? If so, why? This is a double standard.

Crucifiction was a natural way to execute people. It was also used on the survivors of Spartacus riots and was considered one of the more humiliating ways to die.

Crucifixion was used only for political criminals. Spartacus is a good example of this. Not to mention that the depiction of crucifixion in the Gospels is unhistorical - victims of crucifixion were left out for wild animals or thrown in the garbage. They were not routinely given back to the families for burial.

As for the walking on water: the "bible" is 4 records of the life of one Jesus of Nazareth, written by his followers, not historians or critics. They were all written long after the death of Jesus and the people who knew him. They are thus mostly a collection of stories about Jesus.

Each of the Gospels is anonymous. Not once in the Gospels does it say who the authors are - the names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written. This type of literature is pseudoepigraphica, literally "false authorship." It was common in antiquity to write something anonymously, and either attribute it to a famous person (like the apostles) or to let it be attributed later. However, there is no more evidence that the Gospels were written by the apostles than The Ascention of Moses was written by Moses.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...

Or maybe we don't all know the story. When Jesus did this, his disciples were in a BOAT, and He was walking to them. So if your idea is correct, it means either one of two things:
1) His disciples were fishing on very hot ground, or
2) His disciples were fishing on a sandbar
Neither of which seem very likely, considering some of them were professional fisherman, not to mention the fact that even a four year old would know that it's incredibly difficult to catch fish in the pavement.

Your story also fails to explain how Peter got on the "very hot ground" and walked toward Jesus. I'd think that he would have realized that it wasn't water when he got on it. And also, I've yet to see anyone drown on pavement. So...that's what I think.

Fass is a doctor. Someone start talking about a gay conspiracy and he'll show up and we can ask him.

OK, here comes. Judas Ischariot and High Priest Caiphas, in jolly cahoots before 30 AD, conspired against JC, since he talked dirty about Pontius Pilatus who had had a thing going on with one of Herod's lovers on whom Judas himself had cast an eye.

Dan Brown has proof.

First of all, we have substantial evidence that he has existed. The Romans had a vast bureaucracy and it is mentioned in it that one Jesus from Nazareth was put to death by Pilatus.

if such a record existed, copies of it would be on the wall of very christian church in the world

if you would like to provide a link to this mention so that we can all read for ourselves the notation that on a certain day a man named jesus of nazareth was crucified, i certainly would love to read it.

Good question. Now we need a medic.

A bit late he's already dead ;)

and it wouldn't prove much bloodvessels can pop for different reason , generical, stress etc.

Yeah I'm sure it would be impossible for him to make people believe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/images/news/wine_300x193.jpg

was

http://static.flickr.com/30/48659277_c644f2f610_o.jpg

Yeah, must have been spiritual powers and not him switching mugs.

Good question. Now we need a medic.

If I recall correctly, upside-down crucifixions were done in an X position rather than the t position. This helps to distribute the weight more evenly among the limbs, rather than someone essentially hanging by their feet alone.

St. Peter is, in common myth, depicted as being crucified in an upside down t. This could be a lack of historical knowledge on the part of later devotees of St. Peter, who were only familiar with the cross, or it could have been how he was crucified (the inverted t's were not unheard of either).

But since depictions of crucifixion didn't become common until the 9th century (when crucifixion had been gone for a while), its more likely that people heard the story of St. Peter being crucified upside down, and assumed it was the same type of crucifix that Jesus was on, without any working knowledge of the ways people were crucified.

OK, here comes. Judas Ischariot and High Priest Caiphas, in jolly cahoots before 30 AD, conspired against JC, since he talked dirty about Pontius Pilatus who had had a thing going on with one of Herod's lovers on whom Judas himself had cast an eye.

Dan Brown has proof.
Dan Brown has proof of everything.

if you would like to provide a link to this mention so that we can all read for ourselves the notation that on a certain day a man named jesus of nazareth was crucified, i certainly would love to read it.

Tene, lege. (Augustine. Take and read.)

http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus05.htm

The original:

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque], ubi defecisset dies, in usu[m] nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.

Says more about Nero scapegoating the Christians for burning down Rome.
Tacitus accepts Jesus as an historical figure, but calls Christianity a superstition.

Burst blood vessels in the head.
dun matter in this case, the skull wouldnt have been there.

"... the heads of both Saint Paul and Saint Peter are believed to be at Saint John Lateran church, on the Caelian Hill, in Rome."

not that there arent a few other heads of st peter and st paul in various places around europe. not to mention another tomb of st peter in jerusalem.

minor details.

As for the walking on water: the "bible" is 4 records of the life of one Jesus of Nazareth, written by his followers, not historians or critics. They were all written long after the death of Jesus and the people who knew him. They are thus mostly a collection of stories about Jesus.

I'm not sure what bible you're talking about, but mine is 66 books written by different authors over some 2,000 years, and yet doesn't contradict itself once. I've seen book series where consecutive authors can barely manage to keep the theme the same for a couple books. That in itself gives the Bible credibility...there's no way merely men could have kept its theme so strongly centered, there has to be the hand of God in there.

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.

He showed everyone wine and said: "This used to be water".

dun matter in this case, the skull wouldnt have been there.

"... the heads of both Saint Paul and Saint Peter are believed to be at Saint John Lateran church, on the Caelian Hill, in Rome."

not that there arent a few other heads of st peter and st paul in various places around europe. not to mention another tomb of st peter in jerusalem.

minor details.

I don't believe in relics whatsoever. The relics all over the world said to be St Peter's could equip several graveyards, and the same can be said about all early saints.

I'm not sure what bible you're talking about, but mine is 66 books written by different authors over some 2,000 years, and yet doesn't contradict itself once..

A bible that doesn't contradict itself?
Then I guess they left out the whole God's Will part of it?

A bible that doesn't contradict itself?
Then I guess they left out the whole God's Will part of it?

What do you mean?

and yet doesn't contradict itself once.


Moses: an eye for an eye
Jesus: turn the other cheek

Moses: adultery is punishable by death
Jesus: he who is without sin cast the first stone

And yet it doesn't contradict itself once.

What do you mean?

Because the whole 'love fellow man'
And banishing certain individuals
Don't work together.

Tene, lege. (Augustine. Take and read.)

http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus05.htm

thank you so much. i dont read latin myself.

the english translation (from the link)

Tacitus wrote:

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."
Annals 15 : 44.


this is NOT what you asserted existed. this is not a roman record of who got crucified on what day. this is a 90ish year after the fact (after the death of jesus, 50ish years after the persecution by nero) account by a man who only got the story second, third or 4th hand. it doesnt even say "jesus of nazareth" but only "christus" which is not a name but a title (or description?)

Tene, lege. (Augustine. Take and read.)

http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus05.htm

The original:

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque], ubi defecisset dies, in usu[m] nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.

Says more about Nero scapegoating the Christians for burning down Rome.
Tacitus accepts Jesus as an historical figure, but calls Christianity a superstition.

You do realize that this doesn't say that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, right? It says that a Christos existed. And if you're familiar with the history of the region, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of 'christs' executed by Pilate. This is one reason why contemporary schcolarship rejects Tacitus as a historical source for Jesus.

A second reason is that Tacitus is not contemporary, but postdates Jesus by almost a century. As I've written, there are no contemporary sources of Jesus' life.

Tacitus also does not say that he acknowledges that Jesus is a "historical figure." Keep in mind, Tacitus didn't write histories as we know them today. His genre is what we call lives. He also wrote about the god Serapis, and how Vespasian interacted with him on a daily basis - but we don't believe Tacitus as a historical source that Serapis really existed. This is because Tacitus was not a historian in the modern sense, but a historian in the antiquital sense - a writer of lives.

I'm not sure what bible you're talking about, but mine is 66 books written by different authors over some 2,000 years, and yet doesn't contradict itself once. I've seen book series where consecutive authors can barely manage to keep the theme the same for a couple books. That in itself gives the Bible credibility...there's no way merely men could have kept its theme so strongly centered, there has to be the hand of God in there.

What??? There is no way men could have kept its theme so strongly centered? The Bible has very weak continuity if you ask me and I have read it cover to cover too many times to count, in at least five different versions, spent years studying it and know it inside and out. Even the four gospels have irreconcilable differences! The various Star Trek books, written by hundreds of different authors over the years offer more continuity than the Bible does!

Yeah, must have been spiritual powers and not him switching mugs.

Switching mugs? Have you read the account?

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom.

Well, if He managed to bring in 120-180 gallons of wine into a wedding with no one noticing, then that's a feat in itself. And I'm sure he pulled the wool over all the servants' eyes, too. Don't you think that at one point, one of them just might have looked down and thought, "Hey! This water's RED!"?

Switching mugs? Have you read the account?

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom.

Well, if He managed to bring in 120-180 gallons of wine into a wedding with no one noticing, then that's a feat in itself. And I'm sure he pulled the wool over all the servants' eyes, too. Don't you think that at one point, one of them just might have looked down and thought, "Hey! This water's RED!"?

Jesus turning water into wine was exactly what Dionysus did. This is an example of how Christianity borrowed the myths of its contemporary pagan religions to weave its own new myth around a new christ (Dionysus was seen as a christ, too). In fact, even early Christians admit this, like Justin Martyr:

"For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, [wicked demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

The devils... said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven."

Martyr admits pagan influences in a number of places. This one is less clear than other instances, where he is more explict about it. If you're interested, you can read early Christians admit pagan influences on Christianity at my website here:

Martyr on Christianity & Paganism (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html)

Switching mugs? Have you read the account?

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom.

Well, if He managed to bring in 120-180 gallons of wine into a wedding with no one noticing, then that's a feat in itself. And I'm sure he pulled the wool over all the servants' eyes, too. Don't you think that at one point, one of them just might have looked down and thought, "Hey! This water's RED!"?

Considering the water pots would most likely have been made out of clay;
No I doubt anyone would have noticed as the luster of metal or the reflection of clay would have changed the water's tone anyways.

I don't believe in relics whatsoever. The relics all over the world said to be St Peter's could equip several graveyards, and the same can be said about all early saints.
neither do i. and not just because im an atheist.

it presupposes that men who were to scared to even show up at the trial and crucifiction would think to grab souvenirs after it was all over.

that they would grab these souvenirs ("oooo crown of thorns, this is gonna be valuable later")and NOT use them in the early church as important icons of the new religion but hide them later to be discovered by men 1000 years in the future and sold for a tidy profit.

Moses: an eye for an eye
Jesus: turn the other cheek

Moses: adultery is punishable by death
Jesus: he who is without sin cast the first stone

And yet it doesn't contradict itself once.

Should have seen that one coming...
What I'm about to say, I'm sure not many (if any) will agree with. But here it is anyways.

Jesus claimed, during his ministry, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matt 5:17-18)
I agree with what you said, it sure doesn't seem that way. But what Jesus did was magnify the law He gave the Israelites in the Old Testament--He showed its spiritual intent. For example, we should not be the ones jumping to extract the eye or the tooth to get compensation, but if we are in the wrong we should be willing to give our eye or tooth in compensation (turning the other cheek).

And as for adultery being punishable by death, it is. All sins are punishable by death (and no, I do not think that Christ's sacrifice was to give us license to sin, but rather grants us release from the death penalty when we mess up and are genuinely sorry). HOWEVER, it is not our place to administer the death penalty. We don't get to decide who dies and who doesn't. Punishment for sins is God's job: "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord." (Rom 12:19)

So yes, it does not contradict itself once.

Considering the water pots would most likely have been made out of clay;
No I doubt anyone would have noticed as the luster of metal or the reflection of clay would have changed the water's tone anyways.

Um, except it says "waterpots of stone." Maybe you think people back then weren't all that bright, but at the very least you have to admit they could tell the difference between metal, stone, and clay.

neither do i. and not just because im an atheist.

it presupposes that men who were to scared to even show up at the trial and crucifiction would think to grab souvenirs after it was all over.

that they would grab these souvenirs ("oooo crown of thorns, this is gonna be valuable later")and NOT use them in the early church as important icons of the new religion but hide them later to be discovered by men 1000 years in the future and sold for a tidy profit.

Heh, yeah..."relics" are pretty much crap, I'll agree with you there

So yes, it does not contradict itself once.

Perhaps its just the Christians who contradict themselves:

You wrote "all sins are punishable by death" and yet at the same time, the Law is valid. However, the Law does not state that all sins are punishable by death.

And why do Christians always claim there are no contradictions? The Bible doesn't say that there are none. Its a claim that can't actually be supported with Scripture, ironically.

Um, except it says "waterpots of stone." Maybe you think people back then weren't all that bright, but at the very least you have to admit they could tell the difference between metal, stone, and clay.

You think they didn't paint stone pottery?

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove whether Jesus of Nazareth existed or not, or who he was. I don't know.

Tacitus writes:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

Literally: The author of it, Christus, was put to death under the rule of Tiberius by the governor Pontius Pilatus.

So Tacitus does regard a certain "Christus" as a historical figure. "adfectus erat", not "adfectum [esse] dicitur/fertur". "Was put to death", not "is said to have been put to death."

I am nevertheless aware that someone accepting someone else as historical does not make this someone else fall out of possibility hyperspace.
History doesn't have "gospel" truths, that I am also aware of.

What kind of a crap prophet has to do little parlor tricks anyway?
I have amazing psychic powers! When Jesus returns he'll go "pick a card, any card"...And thousand years later people will be arguing on the internet on how he knew John had the ace of spades.

Jesus turning water into wine was exactly what Dionysus did. This is an example of how Christianity borrowed the myths of its contemporary pagan religions to weave its own new myth around a new christ (Dionysus was seen as a christ, too). In fact, even early Christians admit this, like Justin Martyr:

"For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, [wicked demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

The devils... said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven."

Martyr admits pagan influences in a number of places. This one is less clear than other instances, where he is more explict about it. If you're interested, you can read early Christians admit pagan influences on Christianity at my website here:

Martyr on Christianity & Paganism (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html)

I'm not an orthodox christian, and I don't know who this Justin Martyr is--but he seems to be proving Christ was Christ through pagan myths. And that would be one of the reasons I'm not an orthodox christian. Judging from the little I read (maybe I should have read more), the guy's a crackpot...

I'm not sure what bible you're talking about, but mine is 66 books written by different authors over some 2,000 years, and yet doesn't contradict itself once. I've seen book series where consecutive authors can barely manage to keep the theme the same for a couple books. That in itself gives the Bible credibility...there's no way merely men could have kept its theme so strongly centered, there has to be the hand of God in there.

So, good writing can only be attributed to this "God"? I wonder about Shakespeare then.

Also, without wanting to be disrespectfull, claiming that the bible does not contradict itself? The new testament radically contradicts many things from the old testament and the old testament often contradicts itself.

I'm rather curious what this "one theme" is.

I have to go take a shower...wish I could continue this, though...

-They would have felt the difference when they hed the pots, clay and metal also feel different from stone, regardless of paint.
-Yes, Christians provide the hyprocisy, unfortunately. And the bible doesn't need to say it doesn't contradict itself, it merely has to be read to prove that.

Take care, everyone

Well, that's the water to wine trick sorted.

A Christian marketing ploy for the Orphic/Dionysian target market.

So yes, it does not contradict itself once.

for a book that doesn't contradict sure lots of people fight over whats in it or that they believe thats in it.
Iff it contradicts or not i don't give a damn. People should read more between the lines than exactly whats printed. If it doesn't contradict (what i don't believe but aren't willing to waste my time checking it, it's impossible that there hasn't slipped in a fault over 1000 years of copying) it sure does leave allot of blanks. I believe all religions have good intentions but it's people who screw it up. (and yeah the people who think they have to read every letter and start telling people they are the only that are correct)

Well, that's the water to wine trick sorted.

A Christian marketing ploy for the Orphic/Dionysian target market.

On to the Jesus zombie thing! How did he do it?

I have to go take a shower...wish I could continue this, though...

-They would have felt the difference when they hed the pots, clay and metal also feel different from stone, regardless of paint.
-Yes, Christians provide the hyprocisy, unfortunately. And the bible doesn't need to say it doesn't contradict itself, it merely has to be read to prove that.

Take care, everyone

I'm not saying they faked stone to look like anything else.
I'm saying that pottery was usually painted.
If you pour water in a blue bowl what does it look like? Blue.
If there is a sunset upon water what does it look like? Orange.
If you have water in a red bowl it will look red.

So Tacitus does regard a certain "Christus" as a historical figure. "adfectus erat", not "adfectum [esse] dicitur/fertur". "Was put to death", not "is said to have been put to death."

I am nevertheless aware that someone accepting someone else as historical doesn not make this someone else fall out of possibility hyperspace.
History doesn't have "gospel" truths, that I am also aware of.

Lets look at what Tacitus wrote in the Fourth Book of The Histories:

Where Serapis Came From (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/histries/chap17.htm)

"Where the god Serapis came from is a problem which has not yet been brought before the attention of the public by Roman writers. The Egyptian priests give the following account. It concerns Ptolemy, the first Macedonian king of Egypt, who did much to develop the country. While he was engaged in providing the newly-founded city of Alexandria with walls, temples and religious cults, he dreamed that he met a young man of remarkable beauty and more than human stature, who instructed him to send his most trusty courtiers to Pontus to fetch a statue of himself. This, he said, would cause the kingdom to prosper, and whatever place gave the image shelter would become great and famous. Thereupon, continues the account, this same youth appeared to ascend into heaven in a blaze of fire."

If you follow the link and read further, you'll see that Tacitus gives a "historical" account of Serapis, etc. in the same fashion he gives a historical account of Christus. It makes no more sense to believe in Tacitus' histories regarding a Christus than it does of Serapis.

In the same book, Tacitus writes:

Vespasian Hangs out with Serapis (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h04080.htm)

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot."

And again, if you follow the link and read further, you'll see that Tacitus, in the style of "historians" of antiquity, records all sorts of "historical" truths about Serapis, Vespasian, etc.

When it comes down to it, we take ancient histories with a lot of skepticism and a big chunk of salt. They did not have a concept of "historical figures" or "history" in the sense we have today, because they did not have concepts of empiricism, naturalism, and objectivity in historical dictation that we have today. Mixing myth with history was common - and this is why we don't call these histories anymore in modern scholarship, we stick them in the genre of lives.

Tacitus may have believed that some guy called Christus was a historical figure, but he also believed that Serapis came down and hung out with Vespasian. There is no reason we should believe one over the other, and to do so would be a double standard.

On to the Jesus zombie thing! How did he do it?

That has already been answered.

Two target markets:

1) Followers of Dionysos, as already pointed out above by Tropical Sands (who knows his stuff), since Dionysos allegedly arose from death long before.

2) Followers of the Isis-Osiris cult. Osiris did the trick, too, and repeatedly.

So, if you want to sell a cult in the geographical market segment "Eastern Roman Empire", there is no way of doing so without resurrection as a core element in your communications strategy.

I'm not an orthodox christian, and I don't know who this Justin Martyr is--but he seems to be proving Christ was Christ through pagan myths. And that would be one of the reasons I'm not an orthodox christian. Judging from the little I read (maybe I should have read more), the guy's a crackpot...

Well, he attempted to prove Jesus through the pagan myths. That was his goal. However, under the scrutiny of modern scholarship, he did the opposite - we use his writings today to demonstrate the fact that Christianity borrowed from pagan myth, and we acknowledge that Justin Martyr was just using apologetics to excuse this fact; a fact that everyone contemporary to him realized and needed an excuse for.

His arguement was that Christianity seemed identical to pagan myth because demons knew about Jesus ahead of time and created the pagan myths to lead people astray. So, you basically have two options - you can believe demons did it, or you can believe in history, which tells us Chistianity borrowed from these pagan myths. The former is akin to the belief that demons planted dinosaur bones.

You should also keep in mind that Orthodox Christianity, and people like this "crackpot" Justin Martyr, developed your Biblical canon. They sat down, in councils, and voted on which books went in your Bible and which ones stayed out. The reason you're reading the Gospel of John and not the Gospel of Philip is because of a very narrow vote that ruled out the latter. The reason you're reading the Apocalypse of John (Revelation) and not the Apocalypse of Peter, again, is because these "crackpots" voted on the books that reflected their doctrines.

Contrary to popular belief, your Bible didn't just drop out of the sky in perfect form. Nor does the Bible claim that it did, just like it doesn't say that it is perfect anywhere in the Bible, or that it doesn't contradict itself.

How strange, according to these (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) people the bible is riddled with contradictions. I guess they must be wrong. Them and the 1,720,000 or so other sites that come up when you google bible contradictions.

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove whether Jesus of Nazareth existed or not, or who he was. I don't know.

Tacitus writes:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

Literally: The author of it, Christus, was put to death under the rule of Tiberius by the governor Pontius Pilatus.

So Tacitus does regard a certain "Christus" as a historical figure. "adfectus erat", not "adfectum [esse] dicitur/fertur". "Was put to death", not "is said to have been put to death."

I am nevertheless aware that someone accepting someone else as historical does not make this someone else fall out of possibility hyperspace.
History doesn't have "gospel" truths, that I am also aware of.

the point is that tacitus can only tell us what he has been told. he doesnt know anything first hand. he doesnt even know anything second hand--talking to st peter or st paul for example.

if *I* were to tell you stories of woodrow wilson (picked because he existed around 90 years ago) they might amuse you but you wouldnt take them as TRUE unless they were backed up by historical sources. anything that i told you, no matter how much i believed it to be true, must be automatically discounted unless it can be proven by some first hand source.

How strange, according to these (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) people the bible is riddled with contradictions. I guess they must be wrong. Them and the 1,720,000 or so other sites that come up when you google bible contradictions.

Its part of the vast anti-Christian Zionist Conspiracy of Freemasonry, I'm sure.

The only people today that believe in an inerrant Bible are Christians. There isn't a scholarly work in print that argues for an inerrant Bible. And on that note, arguging with a Christian believer in an inerrant Bible is futile, because they reject modern education and scholarship to the ninth degree.

Its like arguing with people who still believe in a flat earth today (Flat Earth Society). They know that the Earth is round, but they adhere to their dogma and practice doublethink regarding the issue.

if *I* were to tell you stories of woodrow wilson (picked because he existed around 90 years ago) they might amuse you but you wouldnt take them as TRUE unless they were backed up by historical sources. anything that i told you, no matter how much i believed it to be true, must be automatically discounted unless it can be proven by some first hand source.

I'd trust your story of Wilson as long as you didn't get done telling me a story about Krishna right beforehand. :D

Its part of the vast anti-Christian Zionist Conspiracy of Freemasonry, I'm sure.

The only people today that believe in an inerrant Bible are Christians. There isn't a scholarly work in print that argues for an inerrant Bible. And on that note, arguging with a Christian believer in an inerrant Bible is futile, because they reject modern education and scholarship to the ninth degree.

Its like arguing with people who still believe in a flat earth today (Flat Earth Society). They know that the Earth is round, but they adhere to their dogma and practice doublethink regarding the issue.
What isn't part of the anti-Christian conspiracy these days?

And do you mean nth degree?

We know he existed but we don't know if he was a proghet.

Really ?
Advert the world, that's good news...
Did you read it in the news ?

The wine?
The old trick to turn transparent water into a red liquid...

But fried banana skin has some side hallucinogenic effects you would not beleive, did they had bananas in that country ?

I'm going to put out this crazy theory on how he walked on water. Let's pretend for a second that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth. And let us say he sent His Son to earth to save mankind. And let us say that this Son was true God and True Man. And let us say that maybe He had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

Is that too much to handle?

I'm going to put out this crazy theory on how he walked on water. Let's pretend for a second that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth. And let us say he sent His Son to earth to save mankind. And let us say that this Son was true God and True Man. And let us say that maybe He had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

Is that too much to handle?

How exactly did Jesus save mankind?

And, by the way, not all so-called Christians believe that the Bible is without errors. That's why some denominations consider abortion and homo-sexuality to be all right. Unsuprisingly, I'm not one of them. In my opinion, if the Bible is in any way shape or form incorrect, then there is no God.

the point is that tacitus can only tell us what he has been told. he doesnt know anything first hand. he doesnt even know anything second hand--talking to st peter or st paul for example.


Of course Tacitus, like any modern historian, can only tell what he's been told.

Historians copy from historians who have copied from historians copying from historians, that's the business of the trade plus some analysis and theory-building.

Some science comes into it, but at the end of the day we are confined to either, with a truckload of salt, believe what Herodotus, Thucydides, Sallust and others write or to question them, where ancient history is concerned.

It's even more hopeless a case when dealing with evangelists.

Before Jesus came along, the only way to go to heaven was to follow the 10 commandments exactly, without error. Needless to say, that is impossible, so they had to sacrifice lambs and goats and other animals. Jesus, being God, could follow the commandments to the letter, and being Man, He, could die for us, becoming the ultimate sacrifice. Read the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John for the complete story.

I'm going to put out this crazy theory on how he walked on water. Let's pretend for a second that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth. And let us say he sent His Son to earth to save mankind. And let us say that this Son was true God and True Man. And let us say that maybe He had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

Is that too much to handle?

This could describe any number of pagan gods. Dionysus, for example, was sent down by Zeus to save mankind, and was also 'true God' and 'True Man.' And it should come as no shock to you that he had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

The fact is, Jesus is no different. This is why modern scholarship admits pagan influences in Christianity, to varying extents.

Now, if we look at it from a Jewish POV, its too much to handle for another reason - the Torah and Prophets explictly state, multiple times, that God is not a man and would never become a man. The very idea of God giving birth to himself as "True God and True Man" is contrary to what the Torah teaches.

And, by the way, don't try to prove or disprove Christianity by using history. It doesn't work.

I'm going to put out this crazy theory on how he walked on water. Let's pretend for a second that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth. And let us say he sent His Son to earth to save mankind. And let us say that this Son was true God and True Man. And let us say that maybe He had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

Is that too much to handle?
lol

not for me, but it IS alot of suppositions to get past eh? in fact, the suppositions are much harder to believe than that, if they were true, he could do it exactly as written in the bible.

Before Jesus came along, the only way to go to heaven was to follow the 10 commandments exactly, without error. Needless to say, that is impossible, so they had to sacrifice lambs and goats and other animals. Jesus, being God, could follow the commandments to the letter, and being Man, He, could die for us, becoming the ultimate sacrifice. Read the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John for the complete story.

Nowhere does the Torah, or any Jewish scripture, claim that to only way to go to heaven is to follow the 10 commandments exactly. This was a myth invented by Christians.

In fact, the Tanach (Old Testament) explictly records many sinners who got to heaven, without following the 10 commandments exactly. Like Moses, who murdered an Egyptain. Nor does it say that animal sacrifice was the only way to atone for sin - another Christian myth.

The way Christians interpret and distort Jewish scriptures is, frankly, disgusting. It is offensive to Jewish culture and to what the scriptures actually say.

Yay! Let's have a nice "homo usios" versus "homoi usios" dispute!
(and burn down Byzantium on the side)

Rift Alpha: spot on.

The ten commandments are such foolishness.

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

KJV - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

NRSV - 17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

TEV - 17 "Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns."

-----------------

That is literally impossible not to break.

And, by the way, don't try to prove or disprove Christianity by using history. It doesn't work.
Christianity is a religion, you can't prove a religion. You can try and prove or disprove something about a religion's beliefs, but not th religion itself. And why wouldn't it work?

This could describe any number of pagan gods. Dionysus, for example, was sent down by Zeus to save mankind, and was also 'true God' and 'True Man.' And it should come as no shock to you that he had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

The fact is, Jesus is no different. This is why modern scholarship admits pagan influences in Christianity, to varying extents.

Now, if we look at it from a Jewish POV, its too much to handle for another reason - the Torah and Prophets explictly state, multiple times, that God is not a man and would never become a man. The very idea of God giving birth to himself as "True God and True Man" is contrary to what the Torah teaches.

Where exactly does it say that God cannot become a man?

The ten commandments are such foolishness.

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

KJV - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

NRSV - 17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

TEV - 17 "Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns."

-----------------

That is literally impossible not to break.
Not if you have a better wife, more oxen, more slaves, a bigger house, and generally a bigger and better version of everything your neighbour has.


Now I see how America was founded on Christian beliefs ;)

Where exactly does it say that God cannot become a man?

Well, if he can make universes and stuff, he'll be able to do that trick as well.

Not if you have a better wife, more oxen, more slaves, a bigger house, and generally a bigger and better version of everything your neighbour has.


Now I see how America was founded on Christian beliefs ;)

Nice! :D

Christianity is a religion, you can't prove a religion. You can try and prove or disprove something about a religion's beliefs, but not th religion itself. And why wouldn't it work?

Because, as you said, it is a religion. And I believe it is true, so therefore, I don't believe you will ever prove it false. And I believe that people need to have the choice of believing in it. God can't force you to be a Christian, or else He would effectively be a tyrant. A very nice tyrant, but a tyrant all the same.

Not if you have a better wife, more oxen, more slaves, a bigger house, and generally a bigger and better version of everything your neighbour has.


Now I see how America was founded on Christian beliefs ;)

Yeah but it goes even beyone neighbours.
Another man's.
To abide this commandment you would have to be the richest and happiest person in the entire world.
Meaning there could only be one person capable of abiding it.
Meaning the commandment is flawed.

Just like the whole religion.

The ten commandments are such foolishness.

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

KJV - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

NRSV - 17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

TEV - 17 "Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns."

-----------------

That is literally impossible not to break.

Yes, because you are sinful. We have original sin, which makes us want to have our will be done, not God's.

Yeah but it goes even beyone neighbours.
Another man's.
To abide this commandment you would have to be the richest and happiest person in the entire world.
Meaning there could only be one person capable of abiding it.
Meaning the commandment is flawed.

Just like the whole religion.

So you are saying that our happiness is based on how much money we have, how good looking our wives are, and so forth?

Where exactly does it say that God cannot become a man?

Ah yes, Christians never know about that. Let us cover it:

God is not a man that he should be deceitful nor a son of man that he should relent. (Numbers 23:19)

I will not act on My wrath, will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God, not man, The Holy One in your midst. (Hosea 11:9)

Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

He is not a man, like me, that I can answer him, that we can go to law together. No arbiter is between us, to lay his hand on us both. (Job 9:32-33)

See the above verses? They state that God is not a man, nor son of man (the title explictly used by Jesus more than any other).

For I am the Lord, I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

See this verse? It states that God never changes. If God wasn't always a man, then according to this verse, God doesn't "become" a man, which is by definition a change. Thus is the nature of the Eternal, if God wasn't always something, then God won't become something else, according to Scripture.

For your own sake, therefore, be most careful – since you saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. (Hosea 4:15)

There is another good one. A warning to Israel never to worship anything with an image, because they saw no image on Sinai. Did Jesus have an image? Then Jesus isn't God.

If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, ‘Let us follow and worship another god ‘ – whom you have not experienced – even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or dream diviner. (Deut. 13:2)

Another warning to the Jews - if they had not experienced in the desert, then it is a false God. Does the Torah record Jews experiencing Jesus? Something both "True God and True Man?" No? Then Jesus isn't God.

If you'd like a more in depth explanation, feel free to visit the article on my website about this issue:

Is Jesus God? (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id13.html)

Now, go ahead and try to misinterpret Jewish scriptures, like all worshippers of that mamzer Jesus love to do. But keep in mind - Biblical exegesis is only done properly via context, and context includes culture. If you don't interpret it its proper context (i.e. a culturally Jewish one), you've misinterpreted it. The above are all from a thorougly Jewish context.

Because, as you said, it is a religion. And I believe it is true, so therefore, I don't believe you will ever prove it false. And I believe that people need to have the choice of believing in it. God can't force you to be a Christian, or else He would effectively be a tyrant. A very nice tyrant, but a tyrant all the same.
So you are saying that if I produced incontravertable evidence that there is no god or something along those lines that would totally invalidate all the beliefs of christianity you would ignore said evidence?

So you are saying that our happiness is based on how much money we have, how good looking our wives are, and so forth?

No I'm saying that in order to not covet or envy anybody, we would have to be better in every way possible.
If there was a way in which we were not better we would covet somebody else's position on that matter who is better off, would we not?
In which case we would sin.

So you are saying that our happiness is based on how much money we have, how good looking our wives are, and so forth?
No, the tenth commandment is.

The ten commandments are such foolishness.

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

KJV - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

NRSV - 17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

TEV - 17 "Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns."

-----------------

That is literally impossible not to break.
MKAV (My Kick-Ass Version) - 17 "Listen, no coveting your neighbor's shit. It's his, not yours. Stop it."

So you are saying that our happiness is based on how much money we have, how good looking our wives are, and so forth?

Look around you. Most people believe exactly that.
I call it "materialistic hedonism" for now and deem it is the most substanceless and stupidest weltanschauung I've ever come across.

Complete agnostic here.

You have your backing on this, Tropical Sands. Most people would just argue and argue until the day is over. Bravo! But I still don't agree with you.

Ah yes, Christians never know about that. Let us cover it:

...



Doesn't that go along with "thou shalt not make a graven image"?
It needn't be a calf. It could be a human image.

Look around you. Most people believe exactly that.
I call it "materialistic hedonism" for now and deem it is the most substanceless and stupidest weltanschauung I've ever come across.

Complete agnostic here.

Well, God never said that being a true believer would be easy. But I just remember this: No matter how rich you are, you are going to die, just like the rest of us. And let's see how your treasures impress God then.

Doesn't that go along with "thou shalt not make a graven image"?
It needn't be a calf. It could be a human image.

Yup, in part. Jesus is considered to be an idol, and those worshipping Jesus to be worshipping a graven image.

Well, God never said that being a true believer would be easy. But I just remember this: No matter how rich you are, you are going to die, just like the rest of us. And let's see how your treasures impress God then.
It's God that's indirectly telling us we need treasures in the first place. Remember the idea from a few posts ago that in order to keep the 10th commandment you have to have more of/a better version of everything your neighbour has.

We all know the story. Jesus walked on water to do some stuff or another.
But if i'm correct he walked on water during the day when it could be scorching hot. The people who saw him walk on water could of been far away cousing the mirrage of water to appear where Jesus was walking. Since every one back then thought what they saw was the facts they would not think it a mirrage but actual water. Or it could of been veeeeeeeeeeeery shallow...

Considering it was on a lake, at night, it would be difficult for there to have been a mirage. Also it would be difficult for Peter to join him.

Well, God never said that being a true believer would be easy. But I just remember this: No matter how rich you are, you are going to die, just like the rest of us. And let's see how your treasures impress God then.

Lk 16:19ff. Never wasted time on getting rich myself. Getting by is good enough.
German proverb goes: Das letzte Hemd hat keine Taschen.
Your last shirt won't have pockets.

It's God that's indirectly telling us we need treasures in the first place. Remember the idea from a few posts ago that in order to keep the 10th commandment you have to have more of/a better version of everything your neighbour has.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't serious. And if it was, it was wrong.

Yup, in part. Jesus is considered to be an idol, and those worshipping Jesus to be worshipping a graven image.

Unless you believe in the Triune God, like I do.

Yup, in part. Jesus is considered to be an idol, and those worshipping Jesus to be worshipping a graven image.

The anthropomorphism of God in all three mosaic religions has always put me off.
Judaism and Islam are more logical, after all. No need to split God in three.

Unless you believe in the Triune God, like I do.

Well, to each person their deity isn't an idol. But according to Judaism, and the Torah, your Triune deity is just as much an idol as Baal.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't serious. And if it was, it was wrong.
Well how do you suggest we not covet our neighbour's everything?


What are you even doing living beside the guy in the first place, he has a house, so if you want a house you're sinning. Get rid of your house.

The anthropomorphism of God in all three mosaic religions has always put me off.
Judaism and Islam are more logical, after all. No need to split God in three.

God doesn't ask us to understand Him. You ever heard of quantum mechanics? That theory is considered to be impossible to be fully understood. God is like that. Or rather, quantum mecahnics is like Him.

Well how do you suggest we not covet our neighbour's everything?


What are you even doing living beside the guy in the first place, he has a house, so if you want a house you're sinning. Get rid of your house.

So if my neighbor has a big screen T.V., should I just go and buy a bigger one? No. I can just learn to live with what I have.

Out of curiousity, am I the only Christian posting on this thing?

Well how do you suggest we not covet our neighbour's everything?

On the recent discussion of coveting, I was always taught thus:

To covet in this sense is more than simply a desire or want of something else. It encompasses an extreme jealousy and obsessiveness over the item in question.

For example, if I see my neighbor's new car and I'm like, "ooh neat, i'd like that." It isn't coveting in this sense. But if I were to see his new car and think, "I want that car so badly I'd eat a baby" then start working overtime just to buy the new fancy car, that could be called covetness in this sense.

A lot of the mitzvot in the Torah are vague like this, so its difficult to tell what they mean. This is why in Judaism we have rabbis and sages, because the Torah states that it is up to the elders and those who carry the tradition to interpret and make rulings on the law.

So if my neighbor has a big screen T.V., should I just go and buy a bigger one? No. I can just learn to live with what I have.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if your neighbour has a big screen TV and you want a big screen TV you are breaking one of the 10 commandments, a mortal sin IMS.

God doesn't ask us to understand Him.

Well, of course not. I don't expect my cat on the window sill (he's sleeping tight) to understand calculus, either. God is entirely out of reach for human reasoning.

(Cat's woken up). It boils down to this: either you accept that HE revealed himself through the Scriptures, or the scriptures are man-made, thus anthropogenous and anthropmorphous like any other text written by human beings. You believe it or you don't. Reasoning with it is a neverending circle, as the many religion threads in these forums prove sufficiently.

On the recent discussion of coveting, I was always taught thus:

To covet in this sense is more than simply a desire or want of something else. It encompasses an extreme jealousy and obsessiveness over the item in question.

For example, if I see my neighbor's new car and I'm like, "ooh neat, i'd like that." It isn't coveting in this sense. But if I were to see his new car and think, "I want that car so badly I'd eat a baby" then start working overtime just to buy the new fancy car, that could be called covetness in this sense.

A lot of the mitzvot in the Torah are vague like this, so its difficult to tell what they mean. This is why in Judaism we have rabbis and sages, because the Torah states that it is up to the elders and those who carry the tradition to interpret and make rulings on the law.
I figured as much, but one of the version of the bible quoted replaced covet with desire.

On the recent discussion of coveting, I was always taught thus:

To covet in this sense is more than simply a desire or want of something else. It encompasses an extreme jealousy and obsessiveness over the item in question.

For example, if I see my neighbor's new car and I'm like, "ooh neat, i'd like that." It isn't coveting in this sense. But if I were to see his new car and think, "I want that car so badly I'd eat a baby" then start working overtime just to buy the new fancy car, that could be called covetness in this sense.

A lot of the mitzvot in the Torah are vague like this, so its difficult to tell what they mean. This is why in Judaism we have rabbis and sages, because the Torah states that it is up to the elders and those who carry the tradition to interpret and make rulings on the law.

That's getting in the same direction of the Catholics and the Pope, in my opinion.

Though I do agree with the coveting part.

I figured as much, but one of the version of the bible quoted replaced covet with desire.

Really? Which one?

Just gotta get rid of one more unenlightened thought:

If God could be proven by means of human reason, wouldn't exactly that make him a creation of Man?

What a pathetic God that would be, one that is open to human analysis.

Really? Which one?
The ten commandments are such foolishness.

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

KJV - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

NRSV - 17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

TEV - 17 "Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns."

-----------------

That is literally impossible not to break.
Post #167

Jesus was made of styrofoam. It was easy to walk on water. He didnt like open flames much.

One of the things I never got was how Jesus can supposedly be perfect, and yet commit one of the 7 deadly sins. That it, wrath.

According to the bible Jesus came into the temple and saw all the money changers and merchants plying their trades there. He promptly went insane and started tipping over their tables, etc.

Now, the deadly sin comes into it here. According to my RE teacher, the difference between anger and the sin of wrath is that anger is justifiable and directed towards the right person. While Jesus' actions could be argued as being justifiable, they were by no means going the right way.

His problem lay with the Pharisees and Saducees who had premitted them to use the temple. It's quite possible these were gentiles who didn't know they were breaching dogma, only that they'd been allowed. I don't know. The fact remains, however, that jesus was taking his anger at the pharisees out on the merchants. Which is Wrath.

-R4ph

His problem lay with the Pharisees and Saducees who had premitted them to use the temple. It's quite possible these were gentiles who didn't know they were breaching dogma, only that they'd been allowed. I don't know. The fact remains, however, that jesus was taking his anger at the pharisees out on the merchants. Which is Wrath.

-R4ph

Actually there was nothing violating Law or dogma in the fact that they were moneychanging and selling sacrifices in the Temple courtyard. In fact, this was what they were suppossed to do, so that people could make sacrifices.

You have to keep in mind that the Gospels were written as polemics against the Jews, most likely by Goyim or Hellenized Jews themselves, and thus they viewed the selling of sacrifices to be materialistic and against pre-conceived ideas of spirituality that they had. It was essentially the beginning of the greedy, money-grubbing Jewish sterotype that would continue throughout the Middle Ages. A sterotype arrived at not by an emic interpretation and understanding of Jewish culture, but an edic 'looking from the outside' interpretation of Jewish culture.

Really? My bad, thought that was why he went bananas. I thoroughly agree with you about the moneylenders and merchants being a good thing. Personally if I were on way to church and realised that I'd left my sacrificial lamb on the kitchen table I'd be bloody glad to see someone selling them outside!

or he could be God and can do that kinda stuff...maybe read Matthew Chapter 14 verses 22-36...

The fact remains, however, that jesus was taking his anger at the pharisees out on the merchants. Which is Wrath.

-R4ph

No, he was angry with what they were doing. That is a different thing. There is such a thing as rightous indignation. He didnt attack them, he turned the tables over and scattered the trade items. It was clearly what they were doing that angered him, not the people themselves.

What isn't part of the anti-Christian conspiracy these days?

And do you mean nth degree?

Its an algebraic notation where n = any Number.

I'm going to put out this crazy theory on how he walked on water. Let's pretend for a second that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth. And let us say he sent His Son to earth to save mankind. And let us say that this Son was true God and True Man. And let us say that maybe He had divine powers that allowed him to perform miracles.

Is that too much to handle?

actually, for me, yeah.

but if you and millions of christians want to pretend that. cool.

I'm going to pretend I AM God. I mean, as long as we are going to pretend, that should be cool, right?

And, by the way, not all so-called Christians believe that the Bible is without errors. That's why some denominations consider abortion and homo-sexuality to be all right. Unsuprisingly, I'm not one of them. In my opinion, if the Bible is in any way shape or form incorrect, then there is no God.

REALLY! Wow. Your way or the highway, eh?

Jesus didn't walk on water, silly! He baked yummy bread and gave it to poor people!

REALLY! Wow. Your way or the highway, eh?

Yeah! Take that, liberal commienazi baby-eating homosexual atheist! How dare you try and highlight bigotry and stubborness!

Yup, in part. Jesus is considered to be an idol, and those worshipping Jesus to be worshipping a graven image.

I tend to agree with this. Not that I think the OT is god's word anymore than the back of my cheezit box, but an Infinite Being requires nothing. Therefore an Infinite Being (which is how I experience God) does not require worship. Worship is an attempt by mankind to appease a God (who does not require that either). Alot of wasted energy IMHO. Simply respect the bit of God in all of us (or that all of us are) and that is plenty. Really. Its that simple.

And Jesus never asked to be worshipped, so lets not hang this nonsense on him.

Yeah! Take that, liberal commienazi baby-eating homosexual atheist! How dare you try and highlight bigotry and stubborness!

:D

Its an algebraic notation where n = any Number.
I know what n means, whoever I was quoting said ninth degree(I think).

Just gotta get rid of one more unenlightened thought:

If God could be proven by means of human reason, wouldn't exactly that make him a creation of Man?

What a pathetic God that would be, one that is open to human analysis.

God is proven by the bible. don't believe me? Ask a Christian. Anyway, God, just like the bible has always been a creation of man.

God is proven by the bible. don't believe me? Ask a Christian. Anyway, God, just like the bible has always been a creation of man.

The bible is a creation of man.

So yeah, I agree.

God is proven by the bible. don't believe me? Ask a Christian. Anyway, God, just like the bible has always been a creation of man.

Nah, I don't believe you. Nothing of the above.

Nah, I don't believe you. Nothing of the above.
POST OF DEATH!!!!
:D

POST OF DEATH!!!!
:D

That's where agnosticism takes you all the time...

...into the great wide open.

Why do people argue about this stuff? If you don't believe in Jesus, then just ignore the thread and post where you have something useful to add. If you do, why couldn't the God who invented the universe be able to walk on water? You aren't much of a believer if your own God can't actually do anything supernatural.

Well, that's sorted.

Next thing I want to know is how he turned water to wine.

He mixed it with grape juice and fermented it for a long time.

neither do i. and not just because im an atheist.

it presupposes that men who were to scared to even show up at the trial and crucifiction would think to grab souvenirs after it was all over.

that they would grab these souvenirs ("oooo crown of thorns, this is gonna be valuable later")and NOT use them in the early church as important icons of the new religion but hide them later to be discovered by men 1000 years in the future and sold for a tidy profit.

ϝϝϝ.εβαι.κομ

(I got it so nice-looking in charmap and other extended character sets , and then had to resort to ascii-based codes that won't even get through the conversion of "&" to "&"... And I know ϝ doesn't exist, as an obsolute Greek character, but imagine it does for the sake of this overextended pun....)

Maybe, just maybe, he was actually God...

So he disobeyed the laws of physics?

If he was the son of God then yes

He mixed it with grape juice and fermented it for a long time.

Bit late, mate.
On one wedding night?

Walking on Water was a boring miracle, the food and wine one's were better and the ressurection ones as well. Those would be cool to do, but who want's to walk on water? You could just get a boat.

My theory is that somebody just made it up.

(If im the first to say this after 15 or so pages I'll be amazed)

It's called surface tension people. Now I'm sure by the time I've posted this, the thread has nothing to do with the OP.

There was a novel published years ago called "The Word". It turns out in the novel that the scriptures were translated incorrectly in a number of small ways, such as the word "on" actually was the word "by".
That is about all the I remember about it as it was my mother who read it and she is now about 70.

One of the things I never got was how Jesus can supposedly be perfect, and yet commit one of the 7 deadly sins. That it, wrath.

According to the bible Jesus came into the temple and saw all the money changers and merchants plying their trades there. He promptly went insane and started tipping over their tables, etc.

Now, the deadly sin comes into it here. According to my RE teacher, the difference between anger and the sin of wrath is that anger is justifiable and directed towards the right person. While Jesus' actions could be argued as being justifiable, they were by no means going the right way.

His problem lay with the Pharisees and Saducees who had premitted them to use the temple. It's quite possible these were gentiles who didn't know they were breaching dogma, only that they'd been allowed. I don't know. The fact remains, however, that jesus was taking his anger at the pharisees out on the merchants. Which is Wrath.

-R4ph
ive always seen it as a sin. if YOU did such a thing at your local parish bake sale im pretty sure your pastor would tell you it was a sin.

Haven't read the whole thread so it might have been mentioned.

Mt 14:23,25 Walking on water took place at night so it was not a mirage. 14:29 Peter stepped out of the boat and walked on water also. Mirage is never right next to you.

according to the story, he craweled out of a boat, while fishing, according to the story, he was on a lake or sea, it was not a mirrage

Or he could have been the LG of Biblical times. That would explain alot.

It sure would. Hmmm. I wonder if LG ever encountered a time machine. :)

It was at the very edge of a lake which was big enough to have a tide. The tide was low when Jesus crossed, but it had risen enough so the others drowned. (Or they could have crossed at a place with water. They couldn't swim so the water might have only been waist high, which could mean they were a metre off Jesus' path [they were a quite a way behind him])

One thing for sure, Jesus never walked on water. The bible says he parted water. (But, in this case, the tide was lower).

Anyway, it could be a misprint or mistranslation (it has been found out already that Satan's number is 616, not 666.)

It was at the very edge of a lake which was big enough to have a tide. The tide was low when Jesus crossed, but it had risen enough so the others drowned. (Or they could have crossed at a place with water. They couldn't swim so the water might have only been waist high, which could mean they were a metre off Jesus' path [they were a quite a way behind him])

One thing for sure, Jesus never walked on water. The bible says he parted water. (But, in this case, the tide was lower).

Anyway, it could be a misprint or mistranslation (it has been found out already that Satan's number is 616, not 666.)
those bodies of water arent big enough to have a tide that makes a difference. the bible has him doing it in matthew, mark and john, it seems to be on the sea of galilee.

Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.
After doing so, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone.
Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it.
During the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them, walking on the sea.
When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. "It is a ghost," they said, and they cried out in fear.
At once (Jesus) spoke to them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid."
Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."
He said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.
But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
After they got into the boat, the wind died down


why is it so hard to think that either it happened exactly as written or that it was made up whole cloth. what DIDNT happen was that it was a mirage or that he was walking on the lake bottom. jesus didnt fake anything, it either happened as written or the story was entirely made up to fit ancient ways of thinking.

the site http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark06e.htm suggests that it is all about fitting in with common ancient beliefs about gods

In fact, the purpose of Jesus’ walking on water had nothing to do with getting across the sea and everything to do with Mark’s audience. They lived in a culture where there were many claims about various figures’ divinity and a common feature of having divine powers was the ability to walk on water. Jesus walked on water because Jesus had to walk on water, otherwise it would have been difficult for the early Christians to insist that their god-man was just as powerful as others

It's called surface tension people. Now I'm sure by the time I've posted this, the thread has nothing to do with the OP.
Adressed. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11127175&postcount=29)

Bow down before your Lord and Saviour, Jeezus:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Waterstrider_bw.GIF

I found this page interesting. Especially the bit about healing the blind.

Did Jesus Do Real Miracles? (http://www.geocities.com/logic_faith/miracles.htm)

I found this page interesting. Especially the bit about healing the blind.

Did Jesus Do Real Miracles? (http://www.geocities.com/logic_faith/miracles.htm)
i read through the blind one, then read the biblical account and i found the websites arguements flat out wrong. maybe we have different translations or something but his reasoning didnt follow at all.

i didnt like the walking on water or the feeding of the 500 any better.