NationStates Jolt Archive

okay just discuss...I wanna know.

Jesus is an incomplete question.

its your job as thread starter to get the discussion going.

so post a few thoughts of your own and youll get lots of responses

Let's not think of Jesus as a question but a variable.

I once found Jesus..... and promptly turned him over to Pontius Pilate.

ouch..that was harsh...okay then, was jesus figurative or literal... are the stories guild lines or...something else?

Jesus is...

an okay guy. He's kind of quiet, but he does his job well. His cousin Esmerelda is totally hot, sometimes she gives him a ride home, and I'd totally ask her out, but I don't know if she's with somebody, and I kind of don't want to ask Jesus about her because its kind of creepy to ask a guy about his sister, you know?

Jesus DID exist, but he was just an ordinary human born to two other humans.

okay just discuss...I wanna know.


Jewish philosopher who is both overated, and overhated.

A popular latin american first name. :)

Jewish philosopher who is both overated, and overhated.

so why do you think he was overrated. and then again why was he over hated? Or do you think that is why he "came?"

Well if you want a real reply, I guess I can give you one.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real or just made for the best selling work of fiction of all time. However, what I find funny is that many people (religious and non-religious both) view many other works of fiction to be of equal truth. For example, The DaVinci Code. Seriously, there are some fanatics who believe that book was true. Ultimately, it depends on whether you believe that the teachings of Jesus, be he real or not, are worth living by. His actual existence is irrelevant. The lifestyle proposed is not however.

A popular latin american first name. :)

nice. :p but doesn't that have a mark over one of the letters...?

Well if you want a real reply, I guess I can give you one.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real or just made for the best selling work of fiction of all time. However, what I find funny is that many people (religious and non-religious both) view many other works of fiction to be of equal truth. For example, The DaVinci Code. Seriously, there are some fanatics who believe that book was true. Ultimately, it depends on whether you believe that the teachings of Jesus, be he real or not, are worth living by. His actual existence is irrelevant. The lifestyle proposed is not however.

I like that... so many people are so focused on whether he actually did what is in the book. But even if they were all just parables, either way it gives someone something to base their live upon. not that it is truth or un-truth.

Well if you want a real reply, I guess I can give you one.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real or just made for the best selling work of fiction of all time. However, what I find funny is that many people (religious and non-religious both) view many other works of fiction to be of equal truth. For example, The DaVinci Code. Seriously, there are some fanatics who believe that book was true. Ultimately, it depends on whether you believe that the teachings of Jesus, be he real or not, are worth living by. His actual existence is irrelevant. The lifestyle proposed is not however.

yeah. or those "left behind" books that a massive number of people seem to think are as important as the gospels.

wierd

I started reading those books...but had to put them down... glorifying things that are so debatable even among christians... i got sick of it.

Jesus is dead (and he's not coming back). What he was, however, was a Judeo-Islamic prophet who caused some trouble in Roman controlled Israel a couple thousand years ago, got executed, and whose memory was unfortunately later pressed into service by one Saul of Tarsus among others to be the central figure in a rather depressing cult that became the religion we now know as Christianity.

so why do you think he was overrated. and then again why was he over hated? Or do you think that is why he "came?"

Overrated because so many people did so much, and effected the world so much, in so many ways, terrible and good, simply because some guy said "love is good".

Overhated because when I disagreed with someone, they thought I was a Christian. They sent a telegram saying how Jesus-lovers are the scum of the Earth. Jeez, you guys need to chill-out. You hate Christians way too much.

I live near a preacher who yells all night after curfew, and I don't hate Christians that much.

...da man.

I live near a preacher who yells all night after curfew, and I don't hate Christians that much.

Interesting... yelling all night.

but anyway. did you guys hear about the church that is protesting at funerals of soldiers or of known homosexuals... they have signs and little kids yelling "god hates fags" ...or "god hates america."

Here in my country it doesn't.

Jesus was my classmate in sixth grade at a Catholic School. Jesus likes to hug me but I avoid him so much because he has body odor...

I didn't know it didn't have a mark. interesting.

How about this then:

Jesus Christ is an ideal. He represents a way to live your life that some people(me included) feel can bring you closer to God.

nice. :p but doesn't that have a mark over one of the letters...?
Here in my country it doesn't.

Jesus was my classmate in sixth grade at a Catholic School. Jesus likes to hug me but I avoid him so much because he has body odor...

Interesting... yelling all night.

but anyway. did you guys hear about the church that is protesting at funerals of soldiers or of known homosexuals... they have signs and little kids yelling "god hates fags" ...or "god hates america."

Meh. It doesn't really make sense. The preacher I live near is saying anyone who does not love Jesus will burn forever in hell. He used to keep his door open (response when you ask him to shut it: "you can't shut-out God! God knows no curfew!") That was way-loud, so he got a little visit from the local authorities. They told him this was no-preaching zone. He apparently didn't think there wasa zone too-good for God, and later resumed his gospels, albeit with the aperture sealed.

now, that brings up an interesting question. Jesus, in the bible, did break laws however we are told to uphold the laws of man. So have religious persons (of any kind) gotten out of hand?

Jesus is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH is salvation".

I didn't know it didn't have a mark. interesting.
It has in Latin America and some other countries, but we're not part of that list.

EDIT: I'm a victim of a time warp! Waaaaah! :(

Interesting... yelling all night.

but anyway. did you guys hear about the church that is protesting at funerals of soldiers or of known homosexuals... they have signs and little kids yelling "god hates fags" ...or "god hates america."

with any luck they'll have to sell those signs to a recycler to help dredge up the money for the $11million judgement against them for protesting those funerals.

do you think $11 million is a little high. but then what is the price of freedom and is this hindering their freedom to choose and or speak?

do you think $11 million is a little high. but then what is the price of freedom and is this hindering their freedom to choose and or speak?

They overstep the bounds a bit.

okay... but in a situation where the constitution says we have the freedom of speech where are the bounds and who makes them...

but who is to say he doesn't exist...?

If jesus even existed, he was just an average guy. After all, how can you be the son of something that does not exist?

... a zombie.

A Max Barry impersonator.

A Max Barry impersonator.

Blasphemy!

On two accounts.

Love of all people and a loving, charity towards the poor, blind faith, modesty and humility, self sacrifice for the greater good, salvation for all people, the importance of living life morally, of practicing what you believe, of not being a hypocrite, and not being judgemental, among other things.

That's what Jesus taught and practiced.

Regardless of whether he was real or whether the religious right actually practices these things.

How about this then:

Jesus Christ is an ideal. He represents a way to live your life that some people(me included) feel can bring you closer to God.

I agree in principle, but feel there must be a better way.
Having found it, I feel I must share it with you.
To quote the prophets of this new belief:
i want to f*ck you like an animal
i want to feel you from the inside
i want to f*ck you like an animal
my whole existence is flawed
you get me closer to god

*nod*

Jesus Is...

Depends on your definition of "is"

Jesus is, if he exists, a bastard. Genuinely; I'm actually decent and compassionate, I rush back from a night out to care for somebody whose drink's been spiked and claims they could only think of me, and does this act of decency inspire loyalty? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Jesus, if he exists, has a nasty sense of humour.

Jesus is the guy who mows my lawn, he and his brother Gorge do a great job!

Jesus is a...woman!:eek:

Click Stand;13182156']Jesus is a...woman!:eek:

Unfounded and untrue.
It is well established that Jesus is a mineral.

Jesus ... was a Judeo-Islamic prophet

Whoa, whoa. You didn't actually think you could get away with that, did you? Even I, a humble atheist, isn't so ignorant (or maybe for you it's an issue of political correctness) as to mix the two. Yes, Jesus came out of a Jewish tradition, was born to Jewish parents, and, as the story goes, even taught in a Jewish synagogue at a young age. But how in the hell did you mix Jesus up with another, entirely different religion that came not one, not two, but six centuries later? That took some balls.

Whoa, whoa. You didn't actually think you could get away with that, did you? Even I, a humble atheist, isn't so ignorant (or maybe for you it's an issue of political correctness) as to mix the two. Yes, Jesus came out of a Jewish tradition, was born to Jewish parents, and, as the story goes, even taught in a Jewish synagogue at a young age. But how in the hell did you mix Jesus up with another, entirely different religion that came not one, not two, but six centuries later? That took some balls.


They consider him a prophet aswell, and believe that Judaism and Christianity corrupted the words of God over the years and Mohamed restored the original Abrahamic faith.

Jesus is the light of the world and the Prince of peace and God's son!If you hate what I am saying tha you hate all Christians and He is above all when GOd comes back he will take me up along with all the youngest!:)ANd all the world shall see that Jesus is Lord!:DCHristians own 2 fourths of the worlds population.:)So when he comes back people will die and at the end of the tribulation all will be judged!"For all have sinned and have come short to the glory of God." ......God:):D:rolleyes:

They consider him a prophet aswell, and believe that Judaism and Christianity corrupted the words of God over the years and Mohamed restored the original Abrahamic faith.

Whether or not he is considered by Islam to be a prophet thereof does not have any bearing on whether or not he had anything to do with Islam.

Whether or not he is considered by Islam to be a prophet thereof does not have any bearing on whether or not he had anything to do with Islam.

The thread isn't about what he was, it's about what he is.

Jesus is the light of the world and the Prince of peace and God's son!If you hate what I am saying tha you hate all Christians and He is above all when God comes back he will take me up along with all the youngest and all Christians !:)ANd all the world shall see that Jesus is Lord!:DCHristians own 2 fourths of the worlds population.:)So when he comes back people will die and at the end of the tribulation all will be judged!"For all have sinned and have come short to the glory of God." ......God:):D:rolleyes:By the way God is the only true God not stupid Muhmahad(the devil).

Jesus is the light of the world and the Prince of peace and God's son!If you hate what I am saying tha you hate all Christians and He is above all when GOd comes back he will take me up along with all the youngest!:)ANd all the world shall see that Jesus is Lord!:DCHristians own 2 fourths of the worlds population.:)So when he comes back people will die and at the end of the tribulation all will be judged!"For all have sinned and have come short to the glory of God." ......God:):D:rolleyes:

When you see the smilie sidebar try to resist pushing it after every sentence. If you are joking, we should be able to tell. If we can't then it isn't a very good joke.

Jesus is... a Jew.

I found Jesus, but then I lost R2.

Whether or not he is considered by Islam to be a prophet thereof does not have any bearing on whether or not he had anything to do with Islam.

Just like Abraham, Moses, and all the old testament figures have nothing to do with Christianity?

Depends on your definition of "is"

Willie? Is that you?

Islam considers jesus a prophet, but keep in mind that islam didn't come around for another 600-700 years.

Also if we're discussing what jesus IS and not what he WAS then the correct answer is "dead". Full credit for "corpse" and "rotting", half credit for "worm food" and "fertilizer". :p

Islam considers jesus a prophet, but keep in mind that islam didn't come around for another 600-700 years.

Also if we're discussing what jesus IS and not what he WAS then the correct answer is "dead". Full credit for "corpse" and "rotting", half credit for "worm food" and "fertilizer". :p

They haven't even found the body yet. People beleive elvis is still alive AND they have a dead body. Just think of the potential if there is NO body at all.

.....our Lord and Saviour!! :)

so now we're debating whether there is or isn't a body... First off, it doesn't matter if there is one or not because it has been so long that I am sure we wouldn't find anything, being as that region of the earth is the most sought after piece of land between religious and non religious people. Second of all, it doesn't pertain to the subject at hand what so ever. In which case those who do or do not believe in Jesus, or God for that matter have in on way gained any ground for a basis of argumentation for the existence or non-existence of god, or gods... (assuming we are not just talking about the god of one religion but the god's of all.)

so now we're debating whether there is or isn't a body... First off, it doesn't matter if there is one or not because it has been so long that I am sure we wouldn't find anything, being as that region of the earth is the most sought after piece of land between religious and non religious people. Second of all, it doesn't pertain to the subject at hand what so ever. In which case those who do or do not believe in Jesus, or God for that matter have in on way gained any ground for a basis of argumentation for the existence or non-existence of god, or gods... (assuming we are not just talking about the god of one religion but the god's of all.)

Just a thought.:)

so now we're debating whether there is or isn't a body... First off, it doesn't matter if there is one or not because it has been so long that I am sure we wouldn't find anything, being as that region of the earth is the most sought after piece of land between religious and non religious people. Second of all, it doesn't pertain to the subject at hand what so ever. In which case those who do or do not believe in Jesus, or God for that matter have in on way gained any ground for a basis of argumentation for the existence or non-existence of god, or gods... (assuming we are not just talking about the god of one religion but the god's of all.)

Russell's teapot/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Russell's teapot/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn.

That's not really a proof against the existence of anything, it just shows the existence of God is about as likely as the existence of an flying teapot. It's not even a perfect analogy, as the teapot should be detectable, and God is not.

Russell's teapot/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn.

yeah all of those.

yeah all of those.

I think you missed my point. Nobody thinks we should take any of those things seriously, even though we have no evidence for against their existence. Why is this not the case with God? (Assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that there are no valid arguments against the existence of God.)

That's not really a proof against the existence of anything, it just shows the existence of God is about as likely as the existence of an flying teapot. It's not even a perfect analogy, as the teapot should be detectable, and God is not.

No, the teapot is far too small to be detectable by any of our telescopes.

EDIT: No, I realize that none of those are proof that God does not exist. That's not the point. The point is that it's silly to say that one should disprove God before not believing in Him/Her/It, rather than the other way around.

... an ideal attempted by a few, ignored by many, irrelevant to the rest.

Most christians are in the latter two categories.

No, the teapot is far too small to be detectable by any of our telescopes.

Okay, that's a better analogy. (I don't think it was in the original story, but it makes more sense.) Anyway, the first point remains.

Okay, that's a better analogy. (I don't think it was in the original story, but it makes more sense.) Anyway, the first point remains.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Though it's entirely possible that I'm ignorant of an earlier version of the story, and that it's only called Russell's teapot because he popularized it, not invented it.

I think you missed my point. Nobody thinks we should take any of those things seriously, even though we have no evidence for against their existence. Why is this not the case with God? (Assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that there are no valid arguments against the existence of God.)

Okay, so using this (assuming) thing we need to see what each of us believes. Before we can decide whether or not to use these arguments for or against the proof of God into account. Can we give a date to when these "myths" were made, most of them yes. because they can be traced...where as with the existence of God has been written and it is the "longest lasting book" known to human kind. Without a traceable beginning.

jesus was a human being but a normal one. no half divine or w/e ppl say. the government in fact has created religion as a way to control the ppl without them relizing it. i mean think about it a guy who wants us to be perfect all the time is a little over expecting dont you think but the government loves when ppl follow this because it takes less pressure off of the police and courts and allows ppl to feel bad about doing those things themselves because it is what they believ.

No, the teapot is far too small to be detectable by any of our telescopes.

EDIT: No, I realize that none of those are proof that God does not exist. That's not the point. The point is that it's silly to say that one should disprove God before not believing in Him/Her/It, rather than the other way around.
There's a fairly good site with a rebuttal of this, here (http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html).

jesus was a human being but a normal one. no half divine or w/e ppl say. the government in fact has created religion as a way to control the ppl without them relizing it. i mean think about it a guy who wants us to be perfect all the time is a little over expecting dont you think but the government loves when ppl follow this because it takes less pressure off of the police and courts and allows ppl to feel bad about doing those things themselves because it is what they believ.

Jesus never told us to follow government blindly... in fact I believe he would call anyone who did, an idiot. For he was going against what the "government" of that time said. he disobeyed them directly.

Jesus never told us to follow government blindly... in fact I believe he would call anyone who did, an idiot. For he was going against what the "government" of that time said. he disobeyed them directly.

When Jesus disobeyed the government, it was to infiltrate and destroy a secret organization dedicated to restoring the old Imperial system of measurements and overthrow the metric system.

And after the op was complete and Poundmaster was dead on the rapidly flooding floor of his undersea base, Jesus was reinstated to SHEILD and his name was cleared.

When Jesus disobeyed the government, it was to infiltrate and destroy a secret organization dedicated to restoring the old Imperial system of measurements and overthrow the metric system.

And after the op was complete and Poundmaster was dead on the rapidly flooding floor of his undersea base, Jesus was reinstated to SHEILD and his name was cleared.

Yes....exactly...my point....NOT! but who was it...not only the jewish leaders...but the governmental leaders who wanted him killed. They supported the jewish leaders one hundred percent because he was a threat to them.

Jesus is not and never was.

I am and that is the important thing.

Arguing about something that is made up is like jumping on the same spot.
Progression is accepting the present and real and moving forward with the future in sight.

Jesus is not and never was.

in a society driven on proof..."give me proof or give me death." and i guess i am going to have to die because you can't give proof either way. if he was or wasn't. and when you do find out for sure... be sure you are the first to write the book explaining everything because that hasn't been done.

Jesus is not and never was.

I am and that is the important thing.

Arguing about something that is made up is like jumping on the same spot.
Progression is accepting the present and real and moving forward with the future in sight.


Next you're going to tell me Disco is dead. :rolleyes:

There's a fairly good site with a rebuttal of this, here (http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html).

I read the article, and I fail to see how it rebuts the teapot argument. Nowhere does it show why we should hold a double standard and shift the standard of proof only in the case of God. It's just disagreements with Russell's claims for why he is not a Christian.

EDIT: Never mind, found the article on burden of proof, and I am reading it now.

Next you're going to tell me Disco is dead. :rolleyes:

nice...:)

Next you're going to tell me Disco is dead. :rolleyes:

Jah.. Jawohl.. I will and as a matter of fact, already did :D

I read the article, and I fail to see how it rebuts the teapot argument. Nowhere does it show why we should hold a double standard and shift the standard of proof only in the case of God. It's just disagreements with Russell's claims for why he is not a Christian.

EDIT: Never mind, found the article on burden of proof, and I am reading it now.

Sorry, it's someone's blog and so each page is rather long.
Like I said, it's a "pretty good" rebuttal. I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but most of what it says is what I would have said if I weren't so lazy and more erudite.

jesus is as real as someone wants him to be. if u follow his teachings then he is real if not then it dosnt really matter.

Jah.. Jawohl.. I will and as a matter of fact, already did :D

Heathen.

Sorry, it's someone's blog and so each page is rather long.
Like I said, it's a "pretty good" rebuttal. I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but most of what it says is what I would have said if I weren't so lazy and more erudite.
You're absolutely right that I didn't find it convincing. The rebuttal assumes that failing to pre-assume the Christian worldview is automatically assuming the atheist worldview--a fallacy known as a false dichotomy-- which is just silly. He fails to demonstrate, as he claims he plans to, that the concept of proof is impossible in any context other than christianity. People proved and disproved ideas long before Christianity even existed.

Though mostly, it's just a combination of begging the question and quoting the bible. Interestingly enough, one of the Bible quotes that he seems to rely on a good bit is the quote that all people instinctively know God-- and this is provably false! People not raised in religion rarely invent such a concept themselves, nor do they usually adopt religion themselves. The idea seems alien to them-- you'd expect the opposite if they instinctively knew God, no?


jesus is as real as someone wants him to be. if u follow his teachings then he is real if not then it dosnt really matter.

Now that's just ridiculous. Either something exists or it does not. There is no "Jesus exists for some people and not for others" because reality is independent of belief.

in a society driven on proof..."give me proof or give me death." and i guess i am going to have to die because you can't give proof either way. if he was or wasn't. and when you do find out for sure... be sure you are the first to write the book explaining everything because that hasn't been done.

I think in this way.
If you can't prove it, it is not or hasn't been.

I'm not going through enormous research and not finding out anything when I just can get really comfy in my chair and go with the most simple and logical thing.

Prove to me his existence, which you never will be able to do because there's no proof, and I will maybe start an contra-jesus organisation with the main priority to destroy everything about his existence.

Religion is venom,
and venom needs anti-venom to be cured,
with all means needed.

so what is the anti-venom that you are proposing? stating something like that you must have an example.

Jesus is:

okay just discuss...I wanna know.

Jesus is; The beloved Son of God…
Matthew 3:17
and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Jesus is; The one we should listen to…
Matthew 17:5
He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

Jesus is; the one that forgives sins…
Luke 7
49Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" 50And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Jesus is; the one that give us the bread of everlasting life…
John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Jesus is; the one that is in God and God is in him…
John 10:38
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Jesus is; the resurrection and the life…
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Jesus is; the fulfiller of the promise...
Luke 24
44Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.

Jesus is; My Lord and My best friend and Our best hope.

since when has logic come with apathy?

are you saying we should Vote Jesus 2008?

so what is the anti-venom that you are proposing? stating something like that you must have an example.

This is a subject where imagination only sets borders.
The ways needed is the way you come to think of yourself.

I'm just dodging your question because I do not like to help people with imagination and get banned.
If I've said no specific ways, I haven't said anything dramatically at all and no one can blame me for offending them. :D

Jesus is; The beloved Son of God…
Matthew 3:17
and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Jesus is; The one we should listen to…
Matthew 17:5
He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

Jesus is; the one that forgives sins…
Luke 7
49Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" 50And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Jesus is; the one that give us the bread of everlasting life…
John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Jesus is; the one that is in God and God is in him…
John 10:38
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Jesus is; the resurrection and the life…
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Jesus is; the fulfiller of the promise...
Luke 24
44Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.

Jesus is; My Lord and My best friend and Our best hope.

lol

You're absolutely right that I didn't find it convincing. The rebuttal assumes that failing to pre-assume the Christian worldview is automatically assuming the atheist worldview--a fallacy known as a false dichotomy-- which is just silly. He fails to demonstrate, as he claims he plans to, that the concept of proof is impossible in any context other than christianity. People proved and disproved ideas long before Christianity even existed.
Replace the word "Christian" with "theist." The guy writing is a Christian apologetic, or studies Christian apologetics and is thus defending that religion. It works with any one, though.

Though mostly, it's just a combination of begging the question and quoting the bible. Interestingly enough, one of the Bible quotes that he seems to rely on a good bit is the quote that all people instinctively know God-- and this is provably false! People not raised in religion rarely invent such a concept themselves, nor do they usually adopt religion themselves. The idea seems alien to them-- you'd expect the opposite if they instinctively knew God, no?

I don't see where he says religion is instinctive. Are you sure we're looking at the same page (http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/christianity-vs-atheism-and-burden-of.html)?
This is the main part I agree with:
In the Christian worldview, everything in this universe, both general revelation (all creation) and special revelation (miracles, theophanies, prophetic word, Scripture), all of reality, all of it is unavoidable, perspicuous, entirely compelling proof for God. Therefore, when the unbeliever says that he hasn't yet found any convincing evidence of God's existence he is reasoning in a circle. When the atheist says he hasn't come across any compelling proof for God existence he can only do so if he assumes that God doesn't exist. Yet that's the very thing in dispute! The unbeliever rejects the Christian position because he rejects the Christian position. The atheist is not at all neutral.

However, the Christian can also be found reasoning in a circle. When he hears the unbeliever say that the Christian has the burden of proof, the Christian thinks to himself, "That's ridiculous. Everything in this universe bears the stamp of the Creator" (so to speak). "Everything proves God's existence. If anything, the burden is proof is on the atheist." And if God exists then that's entirely true. But the unbeliever and the believer dispute God's existence.
In short, there is a difference of belief not only of God, but of what God is and how to prove His existence.

This is a subject where imagination only sets borders.
The ways needed is the way you come to think of yourself.

I'm just dodging your question because I do not like to help people with imagination and get banned.
If I've said no specific ways, I haven't said anything dramatically at all and no one can blame me for offending them. :D

that is a good way around something... just deny the existence of an answer. i haven't thought about that. it seems like a good way to live life...full of reward...but i guess as long as your safe right?

jesus was not afraid to offend people. "people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people."

but then again we are discussing the existence of jesus.

a sunbeam!

oh and if one does not believe he existed then it is hard to follow what he set forth...so jesus was a bad example.

.....our Lord and Saviour!! :)


It took FOUR pages to get to this answer. -sigh-


Jesus is:
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Gate (John 10:9)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
True Bread (John 6:32)
True Light (John 1:9)
True Vine (John 15:1)
Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
Way (John 14:6)
Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Word (John 1:1)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)

Above all, He is my best friend, and my love.

*Mega-snip*
Long, but probably the best answer so far.

It took FOUR pages to get to this answer. -sigh-


Jesus is:
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Gate (John 10:9)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
True Bread (John 6:32)
True Light (John 1:9)
True Vine (John 15:1)
Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
Way (John 14:6)
Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Word (John 1:1)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)

Above all, He is my best friend, and my love.

I think what we are trying to get at....can it be proven...without this faith mumbo jumbo... without divine help... or knowledge... can it be proven that jesus is...all this stuff, or that he even has the ability, being un-touchable, and therefor cannot have an impact on your life. (for the scientific definition for impact...you get it.) to be a best friend...

but then again we are discussing the existence of jesus.

No we're not
You did actually say that we should do the talking
the only thing you said was "Jesus is.."

And I followed with "not" after that.

I could have said anything like another one said "Sunbeam"
I could've said "an orange" or "a new soda pop"

I think you're a religious fanatic Ztrd getting offended by atheists writing bad things about a holy idol of yours.

Only want to hear good stuff about your idols, don't you?

You must accept the fact that a pair of 2000 year old socks stinks pretty much.

Replace the word "Christian" with "theist." The guy writing is a Christian apologetic, or studies Christian apologetics and is thus defending that religion. It works with any one, though.

Well, he specifically seems to claim that you can only assume a christian or an atheist worldview, but, if you want to broaden it to theism generally, then fair enough. But I'd argue that you don't need to pre-suppose either atheism or theism. I was actually a theist when I first decided that I should look at the evidence instead of just accepting the (Christian) faith of my parents-- and when I did that, I slowly came into atheism. So I don't really see how I could be accused of assuming atheism before deciding that there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God generally, or the Christian God specifically. Indeed, at that time, I wanted to find that the God I'd believed existed, so any bias I had would go the other way, towards inclining me to accept somewhat weaker evidence, instead of towards ignoring compelling arguments.


I don't see where he says religion is instinctive. Are you sure we're looking at the same page (http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/christianity-vs-atheism-and-burden-of.html)?
This is the main part I agree with:

In short, there is a difference of belief not only of God, but of what God is and how to prove His existence.

As I understand it, when he claims that God reveals himself to everybody, just that some reject him, that means that everybody should have an instinctual understanding of God, no? Or at least have a fairly strong affinity for believing in Him/Her/It? But that's not what you find-- only people raised to believe in a God tend to have this affinity. People raised with little or no mention of God tend to be agnostics/atheists.

Furthermore, there is a good way to decide what is evidence for something-- you demonstrate how it is evidence for that. For example, when scientists demonstrate pieces of evidence for evolution by natural selection, they don't just show the facts they've uncovered, but they then explain how those facts are evidence for the theory. Theists consistently fail to do so: they simply say "everything around you is proof of God!"

Yet I've never heard a reason for why it should be evidence for the existence of God-- the argument from design is far from reasonable, evolution has, in the specific case of the origins of life, provided sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. While we don't yet have an equivalent explanation with the same amount of evidence for it for the origin of the universe, there is no reason to suppose the argument from design will be what we find this time-- indeed, while evolution does not apply to the origins of the universe, it does show us that we must be wary of the design hypothesis, because what it does show is that things that appear to be designed are not always so.

I think what we are trying to get at....can it be proven...without this faith mumbo jumbo... without divine help... or knowledge... can it be proven that jesus is...all this stuff, or that he even has the ability, being un-touchable, and therefor cannot have an impact on your life. (for the scientific definition for impact...you get it.) to be a best friend...

A courtroom's ruling makes more sense for your question then the unspecified scientific evidence you try to insist on.

If you ask, who is it, or what have they done, these are questions you ask witnesses, and you have a jury evaluate the evidence and testimony. You don't ask the chemicals in a foreign body what they are, you dissect them. But a person is convicted or found innocent of who they are or what they have done based on witness testimony just as well as physical evidences. And the Bible is chock full of witnesses accounts, the jury gets to hear it even if the prosecuting attorney doesn’t like the testimony.

i will admit that the topic started out that broad (jesus is...) but since then you especially have been getting us stuck in this...jesus doesn't exist type void. we can debate this for many years and i am not sure we will have the answer but until then you can't say that George Washington didn't exist just because we don't have his body. The bible started out as a history book and a reference not for anyone to follow but to keep track of dates. In the original scrolls we found dates inscribed. But all that is to say that the topic was definitely changed from jesus is...to jesus did or didn't exist.

not to say that he did or didn't but don't rule anything out. definite answers are the bane to a thinkers life.

A courtroom's ruling makes more sense for your question then the unspecified scientific evidence you try to insist on.

If you ask, who is it, or what have they done, these are questions you ask witnesses, and you have a jury evaluate the evidence and testimony. You don't ask the chemicals in a foreign body what they are, you dissect them. But a person is convicted or found innocent of who they are or what they have done based on witness testimony just as well as physical evidences. And the Bible is chock full of witnesses accounts, the jury gets to hear it even if the prosecuting attorney doesn’t like the testimony.

Witnesses, perhaps. But reliable witnesses? Not really. Many of the events of the Bible have little or no independent verification(for example, it seems that God forgot to tell the Egyptians about the Flood-- the pyramids at Giza were built before the flood supposedly happened), were written people with obvious motives and agendas. Remember, whenever reading a source, you have to take into account who wrote it, when, and why.

Furthermore, in many court cases where witnesses claim that a person did something, the accused is let off because, as an example, DNA evidence contradicts the witnesses. Everyone lies, to quote my favorite doctor. But DNA is pretty honest.

Well, he specifically seems to claim that you can only assume a christian or an atheist worldview, but, if you want to broaden it to theism generally, then fair enough. But I'd argue that you don't need to pre-suppose either atheism or theism. I was actually a theist when I first decided that I should look at the evidence instead of just accepting the (Christian) faith of my parents-- and when I did that, I slowly came into atheism. So I don't really see how I could be accused of assuming atheism before deciding that there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God generally, or the Christian God specifically. Indeed, at that time, I wanted to find that the God I'd believed existed, so any bias I had would go the other way, towards inclining me to accept somewhat weaker evidence, instead of towards ignoring compelling arguments.
But your view of God was still that of an atheist. That is, you did not see what theists see as proof to be proof, even if you had believed God existed.



As I understand it, when he claims that God reveals himself to everybody, just that some reject him, that means that everybody should have an instinctual understanding of God, no? Or at least have a fairly strong affinity for believing in Him/Her/It? But that's not what you find-- only people raised to believe in a God tend to have this affinity. People raised with little or no mention of God tend to be agnostics/atheists.
I don't think he was saying God reveals himself to everyone individually. Rather, the universe is a revelation of God, and those who see this as evidence believe in God. This is the circular reasoning he talks about though, because if you believe the world is proof of God, you believe in God, which means you believe the world is proof of God, etc. However, the same is true with atheism, it's founded on at least one presumption.

Furthermore, there is a good way to decide what is evidence for something-- you demonstrate how it is evidence for that. For example, when scientists demonstrate pieces of evidence for evolution by natural selection, they don't just show the facts they've uncovered, but they then explain how those facts are evidence for the theory. Theists consistently fail to do so: they simply say "everything around you is proof of God!"
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that theists need to prove how their evidence for God goes into a theory? If so, I would say, "There's something. It seems odd there would be something instead of nothing, so I'm going to assume a Being beyond something and nothing began this something."

Yet I've never heard a reason for why it should be evidence for the existence of God-- the argument from design is far from reasonable, evolution has, in the specific case of the origins of life, provided sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. While we don't yet have an equivalent explanation with the same amount of evidence for it for the origin of the universe, there is no reason to suppose the argument from design will be what we find this time-- indeed, while evolution does not apply to the origins of the universe, it does show us that we must be wary of the design hypothesis, because what it does show is that things that appear to be designed are not always so.
I don't see the existence of life, or solids, or atoms as proof of God. Instead, the fact that anything exists seems proof that someone made it. Nice touches added to creation, such as cute rabbits and yummy cows, simply prove it is a kind God.

I didn't think I would write this much in this thread but here we go

I just wanted to add my comment in this whole discussion.. I did not believe that it would take such big part in it, just more as one silent voice in the masses of noise.

It it true that we would never come to an answer even if we spent 10 lifetimes together just talking about this subject.

But then again, I've got my strong belief in nothing and you seem kinda agnostic but more faithful than not faithful.

I will now leave this thread and leave it to you people.
My opinions are not creative in any way in this subject, it's more like murderous and destructive of the whole thing.

Excuse me and sorry for the intrusion

Witnesses, perhaps. But reliable witnesses? Not really. Many of the events of the Bible have little or no independent verification(for example, it seems that God forgot to tell the Egyptians about the Flood-- the pyramids at Giza were built before the flood supposedly happened), were written people with obvious motives and agendas. Remember, whenever reading a source, you have to take into account who wrote it, when, and why.

Furthermore, in many court cases where witnesses claim that a person did something, the accused is let off because, as an example, DNA evidence contradicts the witnesses. Everyone lies, to quote my favorite doctor. But DNA is pretty honest.
But if witnesses all claim a person did something and there is no DNA, the court will have to believe the testimonies. It's similar with the Bible.

Witnesses, perhaps. But reliable witnesses? Not really. Many of the events of the Bible have little or no independent verification(for example, it seems that God forgot to tell the Egyptians about the Flood-- the pyramids at Giza were built before the flood supposedly happened), were written people with obvious motives and agendas. Remember, whenever reading a source, you have to take into account who wrote it, when, and why.

You can't lump ALL of the books of the bible into a singular attack of reliability. Jesus was the topic here, and the reason I pointed out witness accounts. Obviously these books will need to be New Testament books, attacking the 'flood' account does nothing for this topic, different authors, different messages, different centuries etc.
There are many accounts by letters that claim to be witnesses of the events in question.


Furthermore, in many court cases where witnesses claim that a person did something, the accused is let off because, as an example, DNA evidence contradicts the witnesses. Everyone lies, to quote my favorite doctor. But DNA is pretty honest.

If you have DNA evidence that shows that Jesus can't be the son of God, please feel free to present it. Until then we have contemporary witness accounts that attest that it's true.

Nice touches added to creation, such as cute rabbits and yummy cows, simply prove it is a kind God.

I have to admit, the yummy cows as evidence for a beneficent God argument is a new one for me. And it makes me hungry. Mmmm.

If you have DNA evidence that shows that Jesus can't be the son of God, please feel free to present it. Until then we have contemporary witness accounts that attest that it's true.

There's a show that needs to exist: CSI:Galilee

You can't lump ALL of the books of the bible into a singular attack of reliability. Jesus was the topic here, and the reason I pointed out witness accounts. Obviously these books will need to be New Testament books, attacking the 'flood' account does nothing for this topic, different authors, different messages, different centuries etc.
There are many accounts by letters that claim to be witnesses of the events in question.



If you have DNA evidence that shows that Jesus can't be the son of God, please feel free to present it. Until then we have contemporary witness accounts that attest that it's true.

Come now, you're just being intellectually dishonest and intentionally misrepresenting my point. I didn't claim that there was such DNA evidence, but merely used it to demonstrate that witnesses aren't 100% as you claim, especially witnesses with an agenda, like those that wrote the gospels. (And the other books of the Bible)

Furthermore, the many "witnesses" contradict each other. Sure, the canonical gospels only contradict each other at times-- but what about the accounts that didn't make it into the Bible that are rather different from the canonical four-- sometimes enough so that it'd be hard to believe that they are about the same man? Why dismiss those, when they have just as much evidence in favor as the accounts that were included, that is to say, none?

I have to admit, the yummy cows as evidence for a beneficent God argument is a new one for me. And it makes me hungry. Mmmm.

I think Benjamin Franklin’s, "Beer is proof that God Loves us and wants us to be happy" is the epitome of such examples myself. ;)

I think Benjamin Franklin’s, "Beer is proof that God Loves us and wants us to be happy" is the epitome of such examples myself. ;)

I enjoy that quote, but I think that certain beers fall very short of proving that anyone loves us and wants us to be happy. :p

Anyway, let's carry on with the Jesus discussion.

I think Benjamin Franklin’s, "Beer is proof that God Loves us and wants us to be happy" is the epitome of such examples myself. ;)

Ben Franklin was pretty much awesome in almost every way.

Furthermore, the many "witnesses" contradict each other. Sure, the canonical gospels only contradict each other at times-- but what about the accounts that didn't make it into the Bible that are rather different from the canonical four-- sometimes enough so that it'd be hard to believe that they are about the same man? Why dismiss those, when they have just as much evidence in favor as the accounts that were included, that is to say, none?
They're wrong. Enough said.
Not really, and you have a point. But the canonical gospels were chosen by the Church, and I think it's safe to assume it knew which ones were truly Christian, even if you don't believe it is real.

And theologically, the canonical don't contradict each other any more than Genesis contradicts evolution.

Real.

They're wrong. Enough said.
Not really, and you have a point. But the canonical gospels were chosen by the Church, and I think it's safe to assume it knew which ones were truly Christian, even if you don't believe it is real.
I don't see how you can make that assumption. It seems far more likely that, as humans, they'd choose the ones that contained dogma most similar to the beliefs that were in their benefit to spread. People have a way of looking out for their own self interest, no? Even assuming they had no agenda, as fallible humans, wouldn't they be liable to fuck it all up?


And theologically, the canonical don't contradict each other any more than Genesis contradicts evolution.

Well, that's the contradiction between Genesis and evolution is a pretty big one, so that's not saying much. :P

But in any event, any contradiction of facts is a contradiction that makes it impossible for two stories to both be true. For example, was Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great, as suggested by Matthew, or during the census when Quirinius was governor in Syria, as told by Luke? It cannot be both, as Herod died ten years before Quirinius ever became governor.

Those aren't just incidental facts, either, but events that have a fairly decent impact on the events around the birth of Jesus. This means that Luke and Matthew cannot both be accurate and draws their legitimacy as reliable witnesses (though scholars don't think that either of them actually met Jesus in the first place, we'll set that aside for a moment) seriously into doubt.

I am a bit curious as to why threads like this pop up every few weeks. In the end it becomes a sounding board either for people making half-@#$ed attempts at humor poking fun of someone who admittedly was a very good person (whatever you believe), or else become a theological slug-fest. Seriously, what are people trying to prove here? Do you think that spamming 'Jesus is Lord' or 'Dawkins is my hero' is going to win you some accolade? Have you won the Internet war?

I believe he is God, Lord, and Saviour. That's just me. That generally is what this thread was asking: 'What/Who do *you* think he is?'

I'm fine with hypocrites being ripped apart for failing to live up to the high standards that Jesus set; heck Jesus himself does the very thing time and again. Hypocrisy is rightly condemned. I am a bit curious though as to why you should rip into someone who as far as we know, did nothing essentially wrong? The guy said nothing about who follows Him/him, he said what was essentially right and wrong, Bloodhound Gang lyrics aside. If you're attacking the following He garnered or how people interpret, so be it, but attacking the ideals he set is pretty sick, petty, and generally just shallow any way you slice it.

So yeah, there is my $.02 *nod*.

Well, that's the contradiction between Genesis and evolution is a pretty big one, so that's not saying much. :P
Not really. Genesis is not literal. Thus, it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution, which is.

But in any event, any contradiction of facts is a contradiction that makes it impossible for two stories to both be true. For example, was Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great, as suggested by Matthew, or during the census when Quirinius was governor in Syria, as told by Luke? It cannot be both, as Herod died ten years before Quirinius ever became governor.

Those aren't just incidental facts, either, but events that have a fairly decent impact on the events around the birth of Jesus. This means that Luke and Matthew cannot both be accurate and draws their legitimacy as reliable witnesses (though scholars don't think that either of them actually met Jesus in the first place, we'll set that aside for a moment) seriously into doubt.
I'm not so sure about the discrepancy between Jesus' birth. I know there were several Herods, and I don't think his was "the Great."
But even if it were, that is again irrelevant. The Evangelists were not biographers so much as teachers, and historical discrepancies don't really matter that much. Again, Genesis doesn't contradict evolution, and the gospels don't contradict each other.

I am a bit curious as to why threads like this pop up every few weeks. In the end it becomes a sounding board either for people making half-@#$ed attempts at humor poking fun of someone who admittedly was a very good person (whatever you believe), or else become a theological slug-fest. Seriously, what are people trying to prove here? Do you think that spamming 'Jesus is Lord' or 'Dawkins is my hero' is going to win you some accolade? Have you won the Internet war?

I believe he is God, Lord, and Saviour. That's just me. That generally is what this thread was asking: 'What/Who do *you* think he is?'

I'm fine with hypocrites being ripped apart for failing to live up to the high standards that Jesus set; heck Jesus himself does the very thing time and again. Hypocrisy is rightly condemned. I am a bit curious though as to why you should rip into someone who as far as we know, did nothing essentially wrong? The guy said nothing about who follows Him/him, he said what was essentially right and wrong, Bloodhound Gang lyrics aside. If you're attacking the following He garnered or how people interpret, so be it, but attacking the ideals he set is pretty sick, petty, and generally just shallow any way you slice it.

So yeah, there is my $.02 *nod*.

Well, personally, I participate in them because I find the debate interesting and knowledge a worthy pursuit in its own right. Who knows? I might be wrong! If I am, I need to find out and change my beliefs. And yeah, there is the chance I'll change someone else's belief, but I tend to think that's unlikely because most theists hold their beliefs purely on faith, which is a very odd idea indeed to me.

Come now, you're just being intellectually dishonest and intentionally misrepresenting my point. I didn't claim that there was such DNA evidence, but merely used it to demonstrate that witnesses aren't 100% as you claim, especially witnesses with an agenda, like those that wrote the gospels. (And the other books of the Bible)

you're just being intellectually dishonest and intentionally misrepresenting my point when you say that I suggest that a witness account is 100% and a person 'has' to believe another persons testimony. I didn't say it and I pushed you to the extreme example because you took it to the extremes with you DNA example.

Furthermore, the many "witnesses" contradict each other. Sure, the canonical gospels only contradict each other at times-- but what about the accounts that didn't make it into the Bible that are rather different from the canonical four-- sometimes enough so that it'd be hard to believe that they are about the same man? Why dismiss those, when they have just as much evidence in favor as the accounts that were included, that is to say, none?


Because the oldest accounts are the most likely to be contemporary accounts. Because we have other people like Irenaeus (who was the first Christian to list the 4 Gospels), he was from the 2nd century, making him only third generation to the time in question. He attested that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were the correct ones even as early as by his time. And his time period makes it like me writing what my Grandfather did… A very good likelihood that I would know what he did and what was made up about him later in my time (like the Gnostic gospels).

They're wrong. Enough said.

Have you read them?

[Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or law beyond what the Savior said." ...and they began to go forth to proclaim and preach.]

an excerpt from the Gospel of Mary, taken from the Nag Hammadi Library and translated into English

Not really. Genesis is not literal. Thus, it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution, which is.
What's your Biblical basis for that? How do you decide which parts are literal and which parts are figurative?

I'm not so sure about the discrepancy between Jesus' birth. I know there were several Herods, and I don't think his was "the Great."
Well, he certainly didn't call him "the Great," but he was called that, and he's the closest Herod to matching up chronologically with the gospels. There were others, true, but they weren't in the right timeframe. The next closest one would have had Jesus beginning his ministry 10 years too early to match with the Bible story.

But even if it were, that is again irrelevant. The Evangelists were not biographers so much as teachers, and historical discrepancies don't really matter that much. Again, Genesis doesn't contradict evolution, and the gospels don't contradict each other.

I don't see how the history of Jesus' life is irrelevant-- isn't his life fulfilling the prophecies a big part of why he is, supposedly, the savior? Anyway, if the gospel writers were simply too dumb to either get simple facts straight or simply let people know that they're not being literal, then I'm not sure how much they'd be able to teach me. I mean, come now, how could they not foresee that their followers would take it literally? I know hindsight is 20/20, but it just seems... obvious... to me, to preface a parable in such a way that people won't assume it's historically true.

Well, personally, I participate in them because I find the debate interesting and knowledge a worthy pursuit in its own right. Who knows? I might be wrong! If I am, I need to find out and change my beliefs. And yeah, there is the chance I'll change someone else's belief, but I tend to think that's unlikely because most theists hold their beliefs purely on faith, which is a very odd idea indeed to me.


It's sort of like believing that people are essentially good, that the world/times will get better, and that we should care for others. We don't often get a reason to really believe it, but sometimes there is a nagging sense there is more to life than porn on the internet, a cadillac in the driveway, and JD mixes while staring off at the tv. It's basically the feeling there is more to life than the rather dark world we seem to inhabit, that there is something worth striving for.

No, you can't really prove that. If I could prove all of it, then it would be a lot easier. I can strive for a better world, that I have *faith* it can be better than this. If that makes me a fool, I prefer to be the fool than the cynic. At least I could look at myself in the mirror and said that I tried to find the answer somewhere in this madness.

This isn't really a condemnation or anything, just hard to explain. Faith is...well...it's the idea that there is something that transcends what we just feel, see, and hear. That....there is some meaning beyond this present life.

EDIT: I could argue all sorts of proofs, debate classical literature or philosophy...but those don't instill belief. They shore it up for people, but they don't *build* anything. The fact I enjoy the social sciences doesn't have inherent meaning unless they are practiced, to some degree.

It's sort of like believing that people are essentially good, that the world/times will get better, and that we should care for others. We don't often get a reason to really believe it, but sometimes there is a nagging sense there is more to life than porn on the internet, a cadillac in the driveway, and JD mixes while staring off at the tv. It's basically the feeling there is more to life than the rather dark world we seem to inhabit, that there is something worth striving for.

No, you can't really prove that. If I could prove all of it, then it would be a lot easier. I can strive for a better world, that I have *faith* it can be better than this. If that makes me a fool, I prefer to be the fool than the cynic. At least I could look at myself in the mirror and said that I tried to find the answer somewhere in this madness.

This isn't really a condemnation or anything, just hard to explain. Faith is...well...it's the idea that there is something that transcends what we just feel, see, and hear. That....there is some meaning beyond this present life.

EDIT: I could argue all sorts of proofs, debate classical literature or philosophy...but those don't instill belief. They shore it up for people, but they don't *build* anything. The fact I enjoy the social sciences doesn't have inherent meaning unless they are practiced, to some degree.

See, that's the thing I don't understand. Why believe it without some sort of evidence? :confused: Furthermore, why say that anybody who doesn't believe as you do will be tortured by God for all eternity... because He loves them? (Forgive me if you don't hold this particular belief, but I find it a pretty good assumption when dealing with Christians. It's a pretty standard belief)

What's your Biblical basis for that? How do you decide which parts are literal and which parts are figurative?

I'd just like to mention that Catholicism has a distinct approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Roman_Catholic_principles_of_Hermeneutics) to Biblical scholarship. Since New Limacon is Catholic, I thought that might be relevant.

a bear with mange.

See, that's the thing I don't understand. Why believe it without some sort of evidence? :confused: Furthermore, why say that anybody who doesn't believe as you do will be tortured by God for all eternity... because He loves them? (Forgive me if you don't hold this particular belief, but I find it a pretty good assumption when dealing with Christians. It's a pretty standard belief)


A bit of clarification:

The burden of evidence is often in the eye of the beholder. Much of scientific theory remains theory to the extent that is is plausible and repeatable. That repetition is essentially a form of argument that "experience dictates that under these conditions, this effect repeated multiple times". We take it as a belief that that is the way the world works, until supplanted by a more complete theory.

Believing in morality is more difficult. Essentially there is no proof that there is a thing called 'Justice', or 'Mercy', or 'Honor' or anything else. We have concepts of them that we strive for, but we lack any perfect representation of those visions. Despite lacking ANY practical example of what those words MEAN, most people envision them as being something worthy of looking for. We look for some inherent meaning beyond the social contract that there is a point to life besides pleasure alone: that we feel empty inside even when we fulfill our vices. Ultimately it is that gap inside us that we look to fill, somehow. For some people it becomes something else entirely, but for apparently a lot of people...they feel that there is something that created US that we self-analyze and exist and feel and think because we have some purpose in this life. That we aren't an accident. That belief that there is something more worthwhile to this life than self-fulfillment IS FAITH. It is believing there is something MORE worthy than one's self. Outside of your own thoughts and feelings, there is NO proof (existentialism).

Second point: Most people don't see that properly. The argument is that our love or rejection of God is a choice. God doesn't have some burning hole that we get tossed into. What it is is that a person MAKES a choice, and out of the desire for free will and free love, we take the choice to the conclusion. For a Christian, they desire (supposedly) to have a personal relationship with their Creator. For another, they feel there is always that gap between God and them, and they feel the pain and agony of being left outside the embrace of the one who made them...without purpose or fulfillment.

THAT is the torment, not pain. Pain can be endured, but loneliness/dejection is more 'painful' than torture. As far as I have studied, that is generally what is meant. The pain of living a meaningless existence, unable to see that just above your eyes is the key to all your dreams. That is what they/we mean by that statement.


EDIT: Sorry for another edit! I *hope* and have *faith* that God forgives everyone in the end. Only a sicko wants people to suffer. I don't claim to know God, but I am trying...I can only hope in that mercy for EVERYONE.


I do hope that helps.

Robin Hood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood) is a good example of the sort of evidence we use to create a figure of folklore.

Perhaps Jesus was based on a person, or perhaps an amalgamation of a fashion for claiming to fulfill the prophecy of the OT but we have as much evidence of his actual existence and life as we do for Robin Hood.

I'd just like to mention that Catholicism has a distinct approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Roman_Catholic_principles_of_Hermeneutics) to Biblical scholarship. Since New Limacon is Catholic, I thought that might be relevant.
That's interesting. Thank you.

A bit of clarification:

The burden of evidence is often in the eye of the beholder. Much of scientific theory remains theory to the extent that is is plausible and repeatable. That repetition is essentially a form of argument that "experience dictates that under these conditions, this effect repeated multiple times". We take it as a belief that that is the way the world works, until supplanted by a more complete theory.

Believing in morality is more difficult. Essentially there is no proof that there is a thing called 'Justice', or 'Mercy', or 'Honor' or anything else. We have concepts of them that we strive for, but we lack any perfect representation of those visions. Despite lacking ANY practical example of what those words MEAN, most people envision them as being something worthy of looking for. We look for some inherent meaning beyond the social contract that there is a point to life besides pleasure alone: that we feel empty inside even when we fulfill our vices. Ultimately it is that gap inside us that we look to fill, somehow. For some people it becomes something else entirely, but for apparently a lot of people...they feel that there is something that created US that we self-analyze and exist and feel and think because we have some purpose in this life. That we aren't an accident. That belief that there is something more worthwhile to this life than self-fulfillment IS FAITH. It is believing there is something MORE worthy than one's self. Outside of your own thoughts and feelings, there is NO proof (existentialism).

Second point: Most people don't see that properly. The argument is that our love or rejection of God is a choice. God doesn't have some burning hole that we get tossed into. What it is is that a person MAKES a choice, and out of the desire for free will and free love, we take the choice to the conclusion. For a Christian, they desire (supposedly) to have a personal relationship with their Creator. For another, they feel there is always that gap between God and them, and they feel the pain and agony of being left outside the embrace of the one who made them...without purpose or fulfillment.

THAT is the torment, not pain. Pain can be endured, but loneliness/dejection is more 'painful' than torture. As far as I have studied, that is generally what is meant. The pain of living a meaningless existence, unable to see that just above your eyes is the key to all your dreams. That is what they/we mean by that statement.


I do hope that helps.

But why not let people come back to Him after death? What about people like me, who don't believe in God because of honest inquiry and study, but who would believe in Him if there was sufficient evidence (such as that evidence that would be, well, evident after death.) Or, why not at least just send such people into a painless oblivion instead of allow them to live on in torment (whether physical pain or not) for eternity?

That's interesting. Thank you.



But why not let people come back to Him after death? What about people like me, who don't believe in God because of honest inquiry and study, but who would believe in Him if there was sufficient evidence (such as that evidence that would be, well, evident after death.) Or, why not at least just send such people into a painless oblivion instead of allow them to live on in torment (whether physical pain or not) for eternity?

I can't answer that because then I would know a lot more than apparently, a heck of a lot of sages and other wise folks with beards have searched for all their life. Why would God condemn? I don't believe He condemns, I believe we condemn ourselves. In the sense that someone honestly seeks to know meaning in this world, eventually you have to settle for *something*, somehow. Believe me sir (I assume sir, if you are a madam I apologize), it can be enticing to be enamored with the search itself: the search becomes the religion, and it requires no effort.

The search is what everyone has, but you have to have hope in a sense that you will find the answer. That is what it is about. It is having faith in a just and loving God, that you want to know Him as best you can. That believing he loved the world enough he would abase himself as a human being, to show us that God is NOT just a concept, but a living reality that knows intimately His/Her/It's own Creation.

Of course, one might argue that if you knew, there would be no effort involved. Why call it free will if it is self-evident entirely, requiring no strain to perform? What would be the point of freely loving a Creator we cannot help but perform, like a machine? The point of having a choice in our life is that the burden is on us to choose wisely: We choose to serve our concept of Truth in honest search (leading to God), or we choose to serve pleasure, power, and wealth. "You cannot serve both God and mammon (Money)."

As for the Why part...I don't know. I don't claim even the capacity to answer that. I DO know God is infinite Mercy, and that my conceptions of wanting mercy for all mankind means NOTHING to the one who made us all. So like I said...I have faith in a just and loving God, and that He knows best. That is all you can do, but don't let that idea of not knowing preclude you from seeking the truth. I don't know all of philosophy, or politics, or astrophysics...but I work towards the Truth, because that is the only thing worth doing.

The only thing really worth doing in this life is looking for meaning. Sometimes meaning requires a 'leap of faith' as Kierkegaard would put it. Sometimes...you just have to believe that the answers will come. And they do. They really do.

I'll just touch on a few of my thoughts about who Jesus is.

Jesus is the kind of guy that displays amazing patience with those who are willing to learn, and is quick to refute those who already think they know it all.

Jesus is a jolly good fellow who cares about everyone. He gives comfort to those who need it, and disturbs those who are too comfortable and need to be shaken up a bit.

Jesus is a very wise person who understands the culture and times in which he lives, and communicates with people on a level they can understand.

Jesus is a man who knows what it is to be human at its best, and wants other people to find that knowledge too.

A short list, but that's what I have for the moment.

I can't answer that because then I would know a lot more than apparently, a heck of a lot of sages and other wise folks with beards have searched for all their life. Why would God condemn? I don't believe He condemns, I believe we condemn ourselves. In the sense that someone honestly seeks to know meaning in this world, eventually you have to settle for *something*, somehow. Believe me sir (I assume sir, if you are a madam I apologize), it can be enticing to be enamored with the search itself: the search becomes the religion, and it requires no effort.

The search is what everyone has, but you have to have hope in a sense that you will find the answer. That is what it is about. It is having faith in a just and loving God, that you want to know Him as best you can. That believing he loved the world enough he would abase himself as a human being, to show us that God is NOT just a concept, but a living reality that knows intimately His/Her/It's own Creation.

Of course, one might argue that if you knew, there would be no effort involved. Why call it free will if it is self-evident entirely, requiring no strain to perform? What would be the point of freely loving a Creator we cannot help but perform, like a machine? The point of having a choice in our life is that the burden is on us to choose wisely: We choose to serve our concept of Truth in honest search (leading to God), or we choose to serve pleasure, power, and wealth. "You cannot serve both God and mammon (Money)."

As for the Why part...I don't know. I don't claim even the capacity to answer that. I DO know God is infinite Mercy, and that my conceptions of wanting mercy for all mankind means NOTHING to the one who made us all. So like I said...I have faith in a just and loving God, and that He knows best. That is all you can do, but don't let that idea of not knowing preclude you from seeking the truth. I don't know all of philosophy, or politics, or astrophysics...but I work towards the Truth, because that is the only thing worth doing.

The only thing really worth doing in this life is looking for meaning. Sometimes meaning requires a 'leap of faith' as Kierkegaard would put it. Sometimes...you just have to believe that the answers will come. And they do. They really do.

But say I make an honest inquiry and attempt to find the truth, and it just turns out that I am wrong. Do I suffer eternally for that? That just seems cruel to me. (Sorry if I seem dense on this, but none of this ever made any sense to me when I was a Christian, and much less so ever since I decided to think about it and make up my own mind.)

But say I make an honest inquiry and attempt to find the truth, and it just turns out that I am wrong. Do I suffer eternally for that? That just seems cruel to me. (Sorry if I seem dense on this, but none of this ever made any sense to me when I was a Christian, and much less so ever since I decided to think about it and make up my own mind.)

Question: If you choose to be separated from God, and he sends you to Hell (a place of separation from God) is that a horrible punishment? Wouldn't separation from God only look like a punishment to those who desire union with God in the first place?

But say I make an honest inquiry and attempt to find the truth, and it just turns out that I am wrong. Do I suffer eternally for that? That just seems cruel to me. (Sorry if I seem dense on this, but none of this ever made any sense to me when I was a Christian, and much less so ever since I decided to think about it and make up my own mind.)

You are asking me questions I can't answer, because obviously I haven't died. I can't tell you about what your fate is, because it's not in my hands. I know that to a certain extent, people suffer for guilt...I can certainly attest to that. In a sense that separation and lack of connection with God IS the torment people feel, and that belonging again is what fills us.

I went through a lot of studies on religion, to be honest. I was born Catholic, became atheist, eventually converted to Islam a while ago...but I was never happy. I have books on Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, hermeticism, paganism, all sorts of theories on what the world is or should be. In the end, I wasn't happy because I still felt like I was worshiping a God who was totally absent, a clockmaker who I could appreciate as a deist (God created things, then stepped back to leave us alone), but that never had a sense of connection with. That feeling didn't compel me to DO anything at all, there was nothing transcendent about it. It didn't require magical morality or any sort of thought at all.

That was generally the problem, that it was not a challenge. The Jesus of the Bible comes to Earth to shake the entire system, and ostensibly does so within 2 years to the extent that we see the ramifications today. He preaches a morality that is far beyond what others in his time considered acceptable, he associates with all those considered scum of the earth and speaks on the Lord God as if he were familiar.

Like I said...I don't claim to know life after death. I do know what I have seen God do for me, and for my friends. I know what my life was like before I believed, and afterwards. I have a friend who was a drug dealer, then he turned to God and calls himself 'clean slate', without guilt or shame. He seeks to help people get out of the life he led. I have seen a man I never met, who never knew me, offer to pay for surgery of an injury of mine out of the blue, right on the tube. He heard me complaining to a friend and offered it willingly, knowing I didn't have insurance (I declined of course). I envied that a long time, until I realized that I had to believe God cared about *me*, personally, and that I could love and trust God once again.

I envied that feeling a long time, and ultimately I *did* find it. That feeling of loneliness, of not understanding why you exist is terrible, terrible and cold. It ultimately is a matter of wanting to believe in a God who would do anything, ANYTHING in order to see that you are saved...that your life has merit in His eyes.

There is where the power is, that *your* life matters. That your sins and your good deeds mean nothing to Him, but that your love is what changes you inside to be 'Christ-like', and to dare to call the Creator of the Universe "Father".

Like I said...all I can offer is myself, my anecdotes and knowledge. I don't offer divine insight or great theological points. They don't prove anything, what proves it is how you live it. It's seeing Christians that despite the hypocrites do everything they can to please God Almighty. It's seeing people offer thousands of dollars of charity, seeing them break down in tears and hug each other, opening up their homes and hearts to everyone around them. It is the people who struggle every day to do some good for humanity in this world.

So yeah...Christianity gets a bad rap from the SOBs who take the cash while preaching salvation. I detest them, and the Bible says Jesus does as well. A God who loves not the righteous, not the pure and the clean....but who wants to be with the 'scum of the earth' (of which I include myself)....that means a lot. That resonates, that sense of Absolute Transcendental Love for all things. It is in that God I believe. The kind of God that 2 millennia ago told us to love those who hate us, to pray for them, and to see our purpose as being beacons of light in a dark and sad world, full of pain and misery.

...Like I said, I hope that helps. I need sleep soon (have to defend a thesis tomorrow), but if you reply quick Ill try to get to it. If not, I'll respond tomorrow or you can PM my nation. It's called 'Crownguard' as well (gasp!)

.... a great philosophy (for the most part) during his living years, but a severe prick when he decides to mount the steed and go mowing.
Exhibiting the same bipolar-like extremes that "god" is so fond of through so much of the earlier "literature".
Thus, worthless to worship.

What if he was just another cult leader and some how he got popular after he died

Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. I've got a few questions fermenting in my mind, but I also must get to bed soon, (Damn responsibility!) but I should be PMing you sometime soon.

Though it's funny, because my story in many ways is the opposite of yours. I'm a bit happier now than I was as a Christian, because I don't feel encouraged to doubt science in favor of faith, and I generally feel more able be intellectually free and decide things for myself, plus I'm not constantly worrying about whether I'm sinning or not or whether my friends will go to Hell or not. But that's not why I don't believe, it's just a fortunate side-effect.

What if he was just another cult leader and some how he got popular after he died

Even moreso when he ended up in Jim Morrison's body a lot later on.

What if he was just another cult leader and some how he got popular after he died

Like the Buddha? Or Krishna? Yeah, he was a lot like those cult leaders in that respect. And in others, really.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. I've got a few questions fermenting in my mind, but I also must get to bed soon, (Damn responsibility!) but I should be PMing you sometime soon.

Though it's funny, because my story in many ways is the opposite of yours. I'm a bit happier now than I was as a Christian, because I don't feel encouraged to doubt science in favor of faith, and I generally feel more able be intellectually free and decide things for myself, plus I'm not constantly worrying about whether I'm sinning or not or whether my friends will go to Hell or not. But that's not why I don't believe, it's just a fortunate side-effect.

It's not a problem, honestly. It means a hell of a lot more to me than most hobbies do. I *do* care about helping people as best I can, which is again what I am called to do (as are we all).

Yeah, it can feel liberating...but I felt tired, tired, tired. The ironic tendency was to make "God in our own image". That God was what we conceived, rather than some transcendent reality we seek after.

A lot of people hate the way the world works, and therefore look for something to entertain them or something else to think about. This drives me CRAZY, because the world sucks right now! We need people to fix things, and it's more important to watch American Idol, or kick back with the 360! I hate to be morbid but we all die someday...and it matters to me more than I think on that, and that I find the answer to setting myself aright before I kick the bucket.

Anyways yeah...I welcome the PMs. Have a good night to you, and everyone else. My terrorism thesis looms imposingly tomorrow, begging to be defended against my inept 'peers' and their comments *rolls eyes*.

Edit: I don't doubt science. At all. I subscribe to the theory of evolution and so on. I 'believe' science is the explanation of 'How', but it almost never can answer 'Why' in the sense of "What is the purpose of all this?" They aren't incompatible, despite what pundits may say.

Jesus is God Himself manifest in the flesh.

Jesus is what, or rather WHO, I'm trusting to get me to heaven.

Jesus is the only one who loved me enough to pay for my sins at Calvary so I wouldn't have to pay for them forever in hell.

Jesus is the only person ever to walk this earth who lived a sinless life, and therefore had no sins of His own He had to pay for, so His blood could atone for my sins.

What if he was just another cult leader and some how he got popular after he died

The reason He got so popular is because He didn't stay dead; He got up out of the grave three days after He died.

See, that's the thing I don't understand. Why believe it without some sort of evidence? :confused: Furthermore, why say that anybody who doesn't believe as you do will be tortured by God for all eternity... because He loves them? (Forgive me if you don't hold this particular belief, but I find it a pretty good assumption when dealing with Christians. It's a pretty standard belief)

But why not let people come back to Him after death? What about people like me, who don't believe in God because of honest inquiry and study, but who would believe in Him if there was sufficient evidence (such as that evidence that would be, well, evident after death.) Or, why not at least just send such people into a painless oblivion instead of allow them to live on in torment (whether physical pain or not) for eternity?

But say I make an honest inquiry and attempt to find the truth, and it just turns out that I am wrong. Do I suffer eternally for that? That just seems cruel to me. (Sorry if I seem dense on this, but none of this ever made any sense to me when I was a Christian, and much less so ever since I decided to think about it and make up my own mind.)

The “Name” of Jesus is not a magical spell…We don't use it to magically save ourselves from evil and hell or it's dominions.
Acts 19
11And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims." 14Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" 16And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

But the name of Jesus IS a powerful name…And there is power over hell and it's dominions through Jesus.
Mark 9
38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.

But if a person does not know the name of Jesus…They may still know him through personal revelation and epiphany.
Romans 2
12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Good goes to good, evil goes to evil…
Luke 6:44
for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.

C.S. Lewis once wrote about it (much to the chagrin of some Christians who don't understand their freedom in Christ) in a Narnia book
The Last Battle (last book of The Chronicles of Narnia)
"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) [representation of Christ] will know that I have served Tash [representation of Satan] all my days and not him [the Lion/Christ]. ... But the Glorious One bent down his golden head ... and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

" ... I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. .. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

But you can’t use that for an excuse to not follow Jesus once you hear his voice…
John 10
The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

If a person has heard his voice, then they don't have an acceptable excuse to not follow. If they have never heard it (not even though epiphany or revelation) then it's between God and them, he's lowered the rope to pull them out of the hole, if they refuse to hold on to it I don't see how it's God's fault. He wants them all saved.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The “Name” of Jesus is not a magical spell…We don't use it to magically save ourselves from evil and hell or it's dominions.
Acts 19
11And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims." 14Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" 16And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

But the name of Jesus IS a powerful name…And there is power over hell and it's dominions through Jesus.
Mark 9
38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.

But if a person does not know the name of Jesus…They may still know him through personal revelation and epiphany.
Romans 2
12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Good goes to good, evil goes to evil…
Luke 6:44
for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.

C.S. Lewis once wrote about it (much to the chagrin of some Christians who don't understand their freedom in Christ) in a Narnia book
The Last Battle (last book of The Chronicles of Narnia)
"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) [representation of Christ] will know that I have served Tash [representation of Satan] all my days and not him [the Lion/Christ]. ... But the Glorious One bent down his golden head ... and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

" ... I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. .. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

But you can’t use that for an excuse to not follow Jesus once you hear his voice…
John 10
The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

If a person has heard his voice, then they don't have an acceptable excuse to not follow. If they have never heard it (not even though epiphany or revelation) then it's between God and them, he's lowered the rope to pull them out of the hole, if they refuse to hold on to it I don't see how it's God's fault. He wants them all saved.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/amen.gif

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/amen.gif

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /images/smilies/amen.gif on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at www3.christianforums.com Port 80

Typical!

Is it 'cos I is a sinner?

Jesus is God Himself manifest in the flesh.

Jesus is what, or rather WHO, I'm trusting to get me to heaven.

Jesus is the only one who loved me enough to pay for my sins at Calvary so I wouldn't have to pay for them forever in hell.

Jesus is the only person ever to walk this earth who lived a sinless life, and therefore had no sins of His own He had to pay for, so His blood could atone for my sins.



The reason He got so popular is because He didn't stay dead; He got up out of the grave three days after He died.

The first two I won't argue with, but I'm pretty sure your family or spouse would be more than willing to sacrifice themselves to spare you an eternity of torment. I know for certain I'd do so for Richard.

Also, if all it takes to redeem humanity's sin is a sinless life, shouldn't have we been set after the first dead baby or something?

Typical!

Is it 'cos I is a sinner?



What the poop?!? It showed up right in the preview. :(

I dont consider myself a theologan, nor do I claim to be extremely well read in the bible, but many, many debates about the New Testament on this very forum has forced me to do my homework, becuase ocassionally, a well read educated christian pops up in these threads, and if you are going to try to convince one of them of anything, you have to know what youre talking about.

So...what is Jesus?

To know what Jesus was is to look at all of the texts of the bible, not just "Canon", but apochraphyl (sp?) and some the Gnostic texts.

The version of the NT we know, was after many revisions, translations from very different laguages, and omissions.
More importantly, the exact origins of "Matthew, Mark, Luke,John, are unknown, but they vary from @100-200 ad, with some editions after 300 a.d and the Council of Nycea.

My favorite is Thomas.
Its thought to be the earliest one, and contains no mention of miracles, ressurection, or Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.
It was thought to have been written about 40 A.D.
This means this text is probably closest to who the man Jesus really was.
The only title he is referred to by is "Rabbi"....Teacher.

Clearly, Jesus was a radical Jewish Rabbi, who spoke out against the Roman Authority, and against the prevailant corruption within the Jewish Synagogue, and yet, is remembered for his moving speeches of love and peace.
The attention he recieved on a regular basis, coupled with a growing following eventually alarmed both the two groups, and he was arrested and condemned as a threat, and rabble rouser.

The following stories of miracles and ressurection are however, complete fabrications and were incorporated years after his death.
Remember that the four "Canon" books would be at the very earliest 70 years after his death, and considering the lifespan of the average citizen at those times, we can eliminate any actual "eyewitnesses" to the supposed events.
Especially so if these books werent written until 160a.d or later.
This means any such story must have been passed verbally five or six, seven times.

I think the story itself is a good indicator that placing too much stock in one book is never a good idea. If you look too hard for meanings that arent there, you'll assign your own meanings to supplement them.

Jesus is long dead, assuming he ever existed.

Question: If you choose to be separated from God, and he sends you to Hell (a place of separation from God) is that a horrible punishment? Wouldn't separation from God only look like a punishment to those who desire union with God in the first place?

"The thing about Heaven, is that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants. Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other sorts of things: adultery, pillage, torture--those areas. Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you will have the time of your life!". - Prince Edmund Blackadder, aka Archbishop Edmund the Unwilling

...probably Mexican.

Also, if all it takes to redeem humanity's sin is a sinless life, shouldn't have we been set after the first dead baby or something?
Nah, they closed that loophole by deciding that even a newborn baby is a sinner because 6000 years ago some naked people took dietary advice from a talking snake.

Jesus is a relatively recent incarnation of a popular myth that has been used in many human cultures across the history of civilization.

Nah, they closed that loophole by deciding that even a newborn baby is a sinner because 6000 years ago some naked people took dietary advice from a talking snake.

Well really, if you're stupid/high enough to listen to a snake then you're asking for trouble.

Well really, if you're stupid/high enough to listen to a snake then you're asking for trouble.
I dunno. I think if I encountered a talking snake I'd probably want to spend a while picking its brain. I mean, it's a snake that's figured out how to speak, despite having neither the brain capacity nor speech organs necessary for such vocalizations. That's pretty keen.

Also, remember that the nudists in question were living in a garden with no other human beings. I'd imagine that at some point they'd run out of things to talk with each other about.

Adam: "So. Um. You were made from my rib because God wanted me to have somebody to do my dishes."
Eve: "I thought it was because your first girlfriend got all uppity and refused to kiss your splendidly naked ass."
Adam: "You know, it's not too late for me to have ribs for dinner."
Eve: "Yes dear. Perhaps some applesauce to go with the ribs, dear?"

Jesus is okay. I disagree with some of his statements, but on the whole he's an all right guy.

Sucks that most of his fan clubs are full of assholes though.

I dunno. I think if I encountered a talking snake I'd probably want to spend a while picking its brain. I mean, it's a snake that's figured out how to speak, despite having neither the brain capacity nor speech organs necessary for such vocalizations. That's pretty keen.
Well, there's picking it's brain and there's disobeying the scary disembodied voice in the sky on its say so.

Also, remember that the nudists in question were living in a garden with no other human beings. I'd imagine that at some point they'd run out of things to talk with each other about.

Adam: "So. Um. You were made from my rib because God wanted me to have somebody to do my dishes."
Eve: "I thought it was because your first girlfriend got all uppity and refused to kiss your splendidly naked ass."
Adam: "You know, it's not too late for me to have ribs for dinner."
Eve: "Yes dear. Perhaps some applesauce to go with the ribs, dear?"

And from what I hear about this God character, I don't think he would have approved of them resorting to sexual experimentation.

Well, there's picking it's brain and there's disobeying the scary disembodied voice in the sky on its say so.

Touche.

Jesus is a relatively recent incarnation of a popular myth that has been used in many human cultures across the history of civilization.Blasphamey! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or to the older religion on the other side of the Red Sea. Jesus is our savior, the world is only 12,000 years old, people used to live hundreds of years and God favors us above all.

I got a book here that says so and that proves it.

Jesus was, is and always will be an extraordinary Man! He is Gods son and the saviour of the world! He peromed miracles...healed the sick (matthew 8.1-4), calmed the storm (matt. 8. 23-27)....He rose from the dead after 3 days (matt 28.1-10) and he is coming back for the righteous (matt. 24)...:)

Jesus was, is and always will be an extraordinary Man! He is Gods son and the saviour of the world! He peromed miracles...healed the sick (matthew 8.1-4), calmed the storm (matt. 8. 23-27)....He rose from the dead after 3 days (matt 28.1-10) and he is coming back for the righteous (matt. 24)...:)

I'll just touch on a few of my thoughts about who Jesus is.

Jesus is the kind of guy that displays amazing patience with those who are willing to learn, and is quick to refute those who already think they know it all.

Jesus is a jolly good fellow who cares about everyone. He gives comfort to those who need it, and disturbs those who are too comfortable and need to be shaken up a bit.

Jesus is a very wise person who understands the culture and times in which he lives, and communicates with people on a level they can understand.

Jesus is a man who knows what it is to be human at its best, and wants other people to find that knowledge too.

A short list, but that's what I have for the moment.

Jesus is LG :eek:

Like the Buddha? Or Krishna? Yeah, he was a lot like those cult leaders in that respect. And in others, really.

You sort of missed the boat on the last one. Buddha would certainly count as a cult leader, but Krishna's veneration in Hindu theology is more akin to hero worship than the carrying on of the teachings of a cult.

Remember, stripping away the supernatural, he was basically just a really capable soldier and philosopher who was a general in a civil war 5000 years ago.

Jesus was, is and always will be an extraordinary Man! He is Gods son and the saviour of the world! He peromed miracles...healed the sick (matthew 8.1-4), calmed the storm (matt. 8. 23-27)....He rose from the dead after 3 days (matt 28.1-10) and he is coming back for the righteous (matt. 24)...:)

But what if Matthew was wrong? Or lying?

A popular latin american first name. :)

so is halpenio a popular type of chips. or jalapeno or somethin

Jesus is LG :eek:

Shh... Be quiet, or all the forums will want one. :cool:

Shh... Be quiet, or all the forums will want one. :cool:

*defends LG Christ from the heathen forums*

But what if Matthew was wrong? Or lying?

What if matthew was on LSD and trippin balls?

Jesus is an overrated and overused thing in myths and philosophy. All Christians have for his proof is a book. Wow. A book. Just... wow. Anyone else see any problems with that?

Citation Needed.

Jesus is LG :eek:

Well since LG is a Christian, you'd think that he'd take on some of the J-man's qualities. ;)

You sort of missed the boat on the last one. Buddha would certainly count as a cult leader, but Krishna's veneration in Hindu theology is more akin to hero worship than the carrying on of the teachings of a cult.

Remember, stripping away the supernatural, he was basically just a really capable soldier and philosopher who was a general in a civil war 5000 years ago.

I tend to think that modern Christianity has both folks who engage in hero worship of Jesus, and folks who engage in more of a cult following. The first is usually exemplified by the "Jesus rocks, man, he's my best friend" and "Jesus rocks, but organized religion ain't for me" types. The second is usually exemplified by those in more organized or fundamentalistic Christian sects.

What if matthew was on LSD and trippin balls?

I think that would fall under 'wrong'

good call

There's a fairly good site with a rebuttal of this, here (http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html).

That was a rebuttal?

That was a rebuttal?

Second.

http://www.deathrowtshirts.com/images/products/JESUS-HOMEBOY_DR.jpg

or he's this guy that 2000 years ago got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we were all nice to one another for a change /42

http://www.deathrowtshirts.com/images/products/JESUS-HOMEBOY_DR.jpg

or he's this guy that 2000 years ago got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we were all nice to one another for a change /42

he got nailed to a tree for saying he was the son of god.

Jesus is a relatively recent incarnation of a popular myth that has been used in many human cultures across the history of civilization.What/Who is Jesus an incarnation of? According to Christianity he is the incarnation of the Jewish god, which - as we all should know by now - is a fabrication. So if Jesus is indeed anybody's incarnation, it's not the god he is associated with by Christians.

Well since LG is a Christian, you'd think that he'd take on some of the J-man's qualities. ;)


I sometimes hope I take on some characteristics of a modern day Yurodivy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurodivy). Sometimes in the most oppressive times, it was only the humorists who could get away with the sharpest criticisms.

Jesus is a relatively recent incarnation of a popular myth....
What/Who is Jesus an incarnation of?....

Read before you post.

I sometimes hope I take on some characteristics of a modern day Yurodivy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurodivy). Sometimes in the most oppressive times, it was only the humorists who could get away with the sharpest criticisms.

Indeed. Humor is one of the best weapons we have against stupidity and hate.

What/Who is Jesus an incarnation of? According to Christianity he is the incarnation of the Jewish god, which - as we all should know by now - is a fabrication. So if Jesus is indeed anybody's incarnation, it's not the god he is associated with by Christians.

Maybe He was an avatar of Vishnu.

Sorry, it's someone's blog and so each page is rather long.
Like I said, it's a "pretty good" rebuttal. I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but most of what it says is what I would have said if I weren't so lazy and more erudite.

Sorry but, it looks like what someone would say if they were pretty lazy and not very erudite. That said it's pretty good apologetics, unfortunately apologetics tend to be poor arguments unless you already agree with the conclusion.

Maybe He was an avatar of Vishnu.That "maybe" is based on which hints?

jesus is a character in a book

That "maybe" is based on which hints?

If you rearrange the letters of His name, you get Chess Jurist. This clearly means that He is a judge of basic strategy. Obviously He was sent to us to make sure we play by the rules. *nod*

Jesus is real; unless explicitly defined as an integer.

Religion exists only by faith. It seems most of humanity has an insatiable desire to believe in something bigger than themselves that is impossible to prove or disprove.

Ultimately this allows the "person who got religion" to feverishly believe regardless of how F'd up they are, that there is someone that loves them and has the power to make it all better in the end.... and as an added bonus, that same supreme being has a general dislike of all those who are keeping the aforementioned "person who got religion" oppressed.

is my dad....

But if witnesses all claim a person did something and there is no DNA, the court will have to believe the testimonies. It's similar with the Bible.

If the witnesses are all contradictory, their evidence fails. If the testimony is uncorroborated, it fails. If the evidence is hearsay, it isn't even admissible. Since the earliest written biblical accounts are a generation or two after the alleged events (i.e. hearsay) and contradictory and uncorroborated, thus it's useless as evidence. It's makes so-so mythology (the Greeks did better) but, that's about it.

Jesus is real; unless explicitly defined as an integer.


I dunno...let Jesus = a/b where a and b are elements of the integer set. Jesus hung out with hookers rather then dividing by bees. He also was not Italian, and so did not begin everything with "ay!"

Therefore, Jesus is irrational.

I dunno...let Jesus = a/b where a and b are elements of the integer set. Jesus hung out with hookers rather then dividing by bees. He also was not Italian, and so did not begin everything with "ay!"

Therefore, Jesus is irrational.

Jesusi?

Have you read them?

More times than most christians I know. reading the bible didn't cause me to be an atheist but, if I wasn't before, I likely would have been after.

Jesus is a relatively recent incarnation of a popular myth that has been used in many human cultures across the history of civilization.

Actually several myths, I've yet to see anything original in the myth or the alleged teachings. It's all reiteration or plagiarism of others.

One day, Jesus said to his disciples, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like 3x2 + 8x - 9."
A man who had just joined the disciples looked very confused and asked Peter, "What on Earth does he mean by that?"
Peter replied, "Don't worry, it's just another one of his parabolas."

Jesus is a male individual's personal name in quite a few South American countries where Spanish is spoken as the only, or one of, state languages.

More times than most christians I know.

I'm not most Christians you know. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. :)

reading the bible didn't cause me to be an atheist but, if I wasn't before, I likely would have been after.

I have read the Bible in its entirety repeatedly. As well as having read various non-canonical texts of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and various texts of other religions.

Still not an atheist, though. I was for a time, but it had nothing to do with any scriptures. So I'm curious as to why you think reading the Bible would have led you to atheism.

I believe that Jesus is not just my savior but the worlds. I believe that he is the son of God who came to set the world free from sin. I accepted Jesus when I was in the second grade in during VBS. My walk starts in the second grade in a church in St. Johnsville during a VBS program. They told us of a prayer that we should pray and asked us to pray it. I did, not knowing what I committed to. In the third grade something happened to me that would change my life forever. It was during swim practice that my cousin told me that she became a Jehovah witness. It didn’t affect me right away, but once people found out we were related they thought that I was one too. Now I wasn’t liked by my peers already and was picked on since kindergarten but that was minor compared to what was to come. Older kids started to hurt my cousin and I, mentally, physically, and spiritually. I tried many times to tell them I wasn’t a JW but a Christian. They asked what the difference was but I didn’t know. Yeah I went to church, but no one ever explained it to me. Then Camp Fowler came into my life. It was the first time I actually saw Jesus’ love. It was the first time that I was accepted. That is what kept me going. When kids hurt me I would remember camp and their love and I learned how to lean on God. He was the only true friend I had. After seeing what I saw at camp I saw something different in the kid’s eyes that hated me. I saw uncertainty, confusion, and mostly fear. I saw the difference between someone who knew Jesus and someone who didn’t. God opened my eyes, and I accepted what he had to show me. I recommitted myself to Jesus. But my story doesn’t end there. I started to read my bible and pray. When the kids would say things to me in the hallways or shove me I would focus on a verse. Joshua 1:9 for example. The problem was though I still didn’t know how to explain to those kids what a Christian was. I prayed one night to God to stop the pain, I couldn’t take it anymore, and it was a burden that I could not carry. He answered my prayer, but not in a way I expected. As I look back now I realize that it was a lesson he was trying to teach me. My horse Skip died in the eighth grade. He was my friend when on one else would be. Someone I could talk to and not be hurt by. Skip was more than a horse to me he was a close friend. The weight of the kids and the loss of my horse pushed me into depression. I cried in school, at home, on the bus, and I probably would have committed suicide if it wasn’t for God. God was my only comfort in those days, and he wasn’t through with helping me. He couldn’t leave me like that. God sent me Joey, one of the most popular kids in my class. I don’t know how Joey did it but he stopped the kids from hurting me. He showed everyone that I was human and that he liked me. I became popular, a dream that I had always wanted but thought it could never happen. I forgot God and what I had learned. I started to buy the clothes, dumped my friends, and did things that went against God. God didn’t forget me. I don’t remember when it was or how but it hit me one day and it hit me hard, what I was doing was wrong. All that I had learned from my bible, my church, Diane wager, and camp fowler came rushing back. I was given a huge guilt trip and a reality check. That was the day I took my stand for Christ. The moment I did that I lost my popularity. I became known as Jesus freak, but this time when people came at me I was ready. As they passed me by and called me names, I would smile and say thank you. I finally knew what it was to be a Christian. It confused them. My friends who I had dumped took me back and supported me without question. The popular kids who I thought were my friends disowned me. My stand for Christ that day brought both good and bad things. It brought me my strong faith and a savior who loves me and cares for me. Just thought I would post this.

the Son of God. need proof? research 'the Bible Code'. and research it well.

I believe that Jesus is not just my savior but the worlds. I believe that he is the son of God who came to set the world free from sin...Just thought I would post this.

Thanks for your post, it was very encouraging! And you are correct:

Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is God
Jesus is perfect
Jesus is holy
Jesus is love

Jesus was undoubtedly an historical figure, who lived and died under the Roman government. But he was also God, who has always been and always will be, and who rose from the grave. He was the perfect and final sacrifice who died so that we would not have to live under the curse of death any longer.

I believe that Jesus is not just my savior but the worlds. I believe that he is the son of God who came to set the world free from sin. I accepted Jesus when I was in the second grade in during VBS. My walk starts in the second grade in a church in St. Johnsville during a VBS program. They told us of a prayer that we should pray and asked us to pray it. I did, not knowing what I committed to. In the third grade something happened to me that would change my life forever. It was during swim practice that my cousin told me that she became a Jehovah witness. It didn’t affect me right away, but once people found out we were related they thought that I was one too. Now I wasn’t liked by my peers already and was picked on since kindergarten but that was minor compared to what was to come. Older kids started to hurt my cousin and I, mentally, physically, and spiritually. I tried many times to tell them I wasn’t a JW but a Christian. They asked what the difference was but I didn’t know. Yeah I went to church, but no one ever explained it to me. Then Camp Fowler came into my life. It was the first time I actually saw Jesus’ love. It was the first time that I was accepted. That is what kept me going. When kids hurt me I would remember camp and their love and I learned how to lean on God. He was the only true friend I had. After seeing what I saw at camp I saw something different in the kid’s eyes that hated me. I saw uncertainty, confusion, and mostly fear. I saw the difference between someone who knew Jesus and someone who didn’t. God opened my eyes, and I accepted what he had to show me. I recommitted myself to Jesus. But my story doesn’t end there. I started to read my bible and pray. When the kids would say things to me in the hallways or shove me I would focus on a verse. Joshua 1:9 for example. The problem was though I still didn’t know how to explain to those kids what a Christian was. I prayed one night to God to stop the pain, I couldn’t take it anymore, and it was a burden that I could not carry. He answered my prayer, but not in a way I expected. As I look back now I realize that it was a lesson he was trying to teach me. My horse Skip died in the eighth grade. He was my friend when on one else would be. Someone I could talk to and not be hurt by. Skip was more than a horse to me he was a close friend. The weight of the kids and the loss of my horse pushed me into depression. I cried in school, at home, on the bus, and I probably would have committed suicide if it wasn’t for God. God was my only comfort in those days, and he wasn’t through with helping me. He couldn’t leave me like that. God sent me Joey, one of the most popular kids in my class. I don’t know how Joey did it but he stopped the kids from hurting me. He showed everyone that I was human and that he liked me. I became popular, a dream that I had always wanted but thought it could never happen. I forgot God and what I had learned. I started to buy the clothes, dumped my friends, and did things that went against God. God didn’t forget me. I don’t remember when it was or how but it hit me one day and it hit me hard, what I was doing was wrong. All that I had learned from my bible, my church, Diane wager, and camp fowler came rushing back. I was given a huge guilt trip and a reality check. That was the day I took my stand for Christ. The moment I did that I lost my popularity. I became known as Jesus freak, but this time when people came at me I was ready. As they passed me by and called me names, I would smile and say thank you. I finally knew what it was to be a Christian. It confused them. My friends who I had dumped took me back and supported me without question. The popular kids who I thought were my friends disowned me. My stand for Christ that day brought both good and bad things. It brought me my strong faith and a savior who loves me and cares for me. Just thought I would post this.
GO YOU! whoever you are... GO YOU! "keep fighting the good fight!"

the Son of God. need proof? research 'the Bible Code'. and research it well.

The Bible Code and its sequel(s) have been thoroughly debunked; you can find "hidden messages" in anything. On an Australia TV show they found predictions of 9/11 in the lyrics of Vanilla Ice (a rapper). You can watch a youtube clip of it here (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=u4mG7MdAzOw). Thanks for playing.

</biblecode>

To whomever is swarming the thread with puppet nations:

Quality spoof. *Hat tip*

The Bible Code and its sequel(s) have been thoroughly debunked; you can find "hidden messages" in anything. On an Australia TV show they found predictions of 9/11 in the lyrics of Vanilla Ice (a rapper). You can watch a youtube clip of it here (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=u4mG7MdAzOw). Thanks for playing.

</biblecode>

That is because Osama bin Laden is actually Vanilla Ice in a false beard.

To whomever is swarming the thread with puppet nations:

Quality spoof. *Hat tip*

As far as I can tell, there's no one swarming this thread with puppet nations for at least the past couple pages. Sorry to disappoint.

...
The following stories of miracles and ressurection are however, complete fabrications and were incorporated years after his death.
You are establishing who you think Jesus was with the same books you later attack as not credible. But they are the same books, the books you use to show Jesus ‘messages’ of, a radical Jewish Rabbi, who spoke out against the Roman Authority, and against the prevailant corruption within the Jewish Synagogue, and yet, is remembered for his moving speeches of love and peace.

The attention he recieved on a regular basis, coupled with a growing following eventually alarmed both the two groups, and he was arrested and condemned as a threat, and rabble rouser. But these are the exact same books that say he also performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead, how can you justify that discrepancy? How do we to discern what you have? That only the parts of the story that we want to believe are correct and the other stuff is simply made up?

Remember that the four "Canon" books would be at the very earliest 70 years after his death, and considering the lifespan of the average citizen at those times, we can eliminate any actual "eyewitnesses" to the supposed events.

It is not a given that canon Gospel books are 70 years after Jesus resurrection at the earliest. Even secular researchers use the dates for Mark of 65AD-80AD = 32- 47 years later, and Matthew (Greek version) of 80AD-100AD = 47-67 years later. Hardly any time at all and especially considering Luke wasn’t a first addition gospel recorded by it’s own account, Luke 1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.. Clearly, Luke admits that his gospel is a late comer, not a first, and if Luke was written as early as 30 years after the resurrection or as late as 67 years after the resurrection, why does your argument say there are no actual eyewitnesses? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Arguments for a pre-70 date are largely bound up with the complicated arguments concerning the date of the book of Acts, with most proponents arguing for a date around 60-61 for the Gospel.[36] This incorporates the conjecture that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him.[37] Acts does not mention Paul’s martyrdom, which occurred some time in the 60s, nor the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70. A few scholars who also argue for an early date of First Epistle to Timothy believe 1 Timothy 5:18 is referencing Luke 10:7, and thus argue Luke pre-dates Paul's death.[38]

After 70
In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority.[39] Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.
Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_luke

And keep in mind, seminary scholars (for example) have presented arguments and evidences for even earlier dates for most of the NT works, but I’m trying to use sources you will give credence to.

Especially so if these books werent written until 160a.d or later.
This means any such story must have been passed verbally five or six, seven times.

None of the cannon Gospels were as late at 160AD, Irenaeus wrote of all four, Matthew Mark Luke and John as traditional text as early as 175-185AD, so they must have been written long enough before him to think of them as ‘traditional.’ Link http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

I think the story itself is a good indicator that placing too much stock in one book is never a good idea. If you look too hard for meanings that arent there, you'll assign your own meanings to supplement them.
There are 27 books in the New Testament of most Bibles today, with a multitude of authors. Claiming that it is only ‘one book’ is an erroneous assumption. The modern Bible is a compilation of many books, many witnesses, many testimonies from many different areas of the world.

And we know we have the correct books because we have Irenaeus (already mentioned above) for the NT books we also have people like Melito (A.D. 170, give or take a few) who listed the Hebrew canon minus Esther, and neither made mention of the disputed books (Gnostic gospels and other books), and his list was published and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, as well.

We can see both that the Bible has ‘many’ books and opinions in it, AND we can see that the books we use now are the same books they used in the beginning of the church. The rejected and Gnostic works that have become more and more popular these days were generally (I’m not saying ALL of them) the later creations, not the originals.

jesus is a punk rocker
jesus is a punk rocker
jesus is a punk rocker now

As far as I can tell, there's no one swarming this thread with puppet nations for at least the past couple pages. Sorry to disappoint.
Far be it from me to doubt your Modly powers, but when a crop of nations with single-digit post counts contribute the same flavor of rambling hoo-hah all at the same time, my Spidey Sense starts to tingle.

I believe that Jesus is not just my savior but the worlds. I believe that he is the son of God who came to set the world free from sin. I accepted Jesus when I was in the second grade in during VBS. My walk starts in the second grade in a church in St. Johnsville during a VBS program. They told us of a prayer that we should pray and asked us to pray it. I did, not knowing what I committed to. In the third grade something happened to me that would change my life forever. It was during swim practice that my cousin told me that she became a Jehovah witness. It didn’t affect me right away, but once people found out we were related they thought that I was one too. Now I wasn’t liked by my peers already and was picked on since kindergarten but that was minor compared to what was to come. Older kids started to hurt my cousin and I, mentally, physically, and spiritually. I tried many times to tell them I wasn’t a JW but a Christian. They asked what the difference was but I didn’t know. Yeah I went to church, but no one ever explained it to me. Then Camp Fowler came into my life. It was the first time I actually saw Jesus’ love. It was the first time that I was accepted. That is what kept me going. When kids hurt me I would remember camp and their love and I learned how to lean on God. He was the only true friend I had. After seeing what I saw at camp I saw something different in the kid’s eyes that hated me. I saw uncertainty, confusion, and mostly fear. I saw the difference between someone who knew Jesus and someone who didn’t. God opened my eyes, and I accepted what he had to show me. I recommitted myself to Jesus. But my story doesn’t end there. I started to read my bible and pray. When the kids would say things to me in the hallways or shove me I would focus on a verse. Joshua 1:9 for example. The problem was though I still didn’t know how to explain to those kids what a Christian was. I prayed one night to God to stop the pain, I couldn’t take it anymore, and it was a burden that I could not carry. He answered my prayer, but not in a way I expected. As I look back now I realize that it was a lesson he was trying to teach me. My horse Skip died in the eighth grade. He was my friend when on one else would be. Someone I could talk to and not be hurt by. Skip was more than a horse to me he was a close friend. The weight of the kids and the loss of my horse pushed me into depression. I cried in school, at home, on the bus, and I probably would have committed suicide if it wasn’t for God. God was my only comfort in those days, and he wasn’t through with helping me. He couldn’t leave me like that. God sent me Joey, one of the most popular kids in my class. I don’t know how Joey did it but he stopped the kids from hurting me. He showed everyone that I was human and that he liked me. I became popular, a dream that I had always wanted but thought it could never happen. I forgot God and what I had learned. I started to buy the clothes, dumped my friends, and did things that went against God. God didn’t forget me. I don’t remember when it was or how but it hit me one day and it hit me hard, what I was doing was wrong. All that I had learned from my bible, my church, Diane wager, and camp fowler came rushing back. I was given a huge guilt trip and a reality check. That was the day I took my stand for Christ. The moment I did that I lost my popularity. I became known as Jesus freak, but this time when people came at me I was ready. As they passed me by and called me names, I would smile and say thank you. I finally knew what it was to be a Christian. It confused them. My friends who I had dumped took me back and supported me without question. The popular kids who I thought were my friends disowned me. My stand for Christ that day brought both good and bad things. It brought me my strong faith and a savior who loves me and cares for me. Just thought I would post this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph
the Son of God. need proof? research 'the Bible Code'. and research it well.
The Bible proves nothing.
That is because Osama bin Laden is actually Vanilla Ice in a false beard.

I can habeeb it.

I'm not most Christians you know. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. :)



I have read the Bible in its entirety repeatedly. As well as having read various non-canonical texts of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and various texts of other religions.

Still not an atheist, though. I was for a time, but it had nothing to do with any scriptures. So I'm curious as to why you think reading the Bible would have led you to atheism.


My name is Crownguard and I endorse this statement.


Of course, I fail to see how half-@#$ed attempts at humor or parody is supposed to get me to somehow recant my beliefs. I've read Russell, some of Dawkins, etc. So far, my argument goes right back that: "Unless you agree with him already, it's not all that convincing." You could argue with me about science till you are blue in the face, but science is about understanding the mechanisms of how the universe and all within it operate. It does NOT account for why it exists. That generally falls into the realm of philosophy, metastudies, and theology. Any claims to the contrary are speculation, which supposedly is what people are complaining about as regards religion.


Far be it from me to doubt your Modly powers, but when a crop of nations with single-digit post counts contribute the same flavor of rambling hoo-hah all at the same time, my Spidey Sense starts to tingle.

This surprises you? On the internet? Do go on, madam! Who would think that a forum might drag trolls in on both sides to rake the coals!

I do find it amusing though when people arguing about proving something logically resort to 'logical fallacies' in order to illustrate the point. Why, ad hominum attacks, strawman constructions, the list goes on...


Oh and Balderdash: Despite the rather amusing connotation of your name with this supposed thread, I am sincerely impressed at the depth you went to on your post. Props to you.

My name is Crownguard and I endorse this statement.


Of course, I fail to see how half-@#$ed attempts at humor or parody is supposed to get me to somehow recant my beliefs. I've read Russell, some of Dawkins, etc. So far, my argument goes right back that: "Unless you agree with him already, it's not all that convincing." You could argue with me about science till you are blue in the face, but science is about understanding the mechanisms of how the universe and all within it operate. It does NOT account for why it exists. That generally falls into the realm of philosophy, metastudies, and theology. Any claims to the contrary are speculation, which supposedly is what people are complaining about as regards religion.

I enjoy Dawkins, but to me it seems the only people he is seriously trying to convert are agnostics.

My horse Skip died in the eighth grade. He was my friend when on one else would be. Someone I could talk to and not be hurt by. Skip was more than a horse to me he was a close friend. The weight of the kids and the loss of my horse pushed me into depression. I cried in school, at home, on the bus, and I probably would have committed suicide if it wasn’t for God.

Personally I think God killed your horse on purpose

Jesus is....a man whore!


[yeah...figure it out!]

I enjoy Dawkins, but to me it seems the only people he is seriously trying to convert are agnostics.
I've read Dawkins, and I remain unconvinced that his primary goal is to "convert" anybody. I think Dawkins' priority is being an advocate and an out-spoken representative for the godless. Which is really nice to see, for a change.

This surprises you? On the internet? Do go on, madam! Who would think that a forum might drag trolls in on both sides to rake the coals!

Who said anything about being surprised?

A bunch of low-post-count nations filling a religion thread with astoundingly similar nonsense is pretty much the definition of "not surprising."


I do find it amusing though when people arguing about proving something logically resort to 'logical fallacies' in order to illustrate the point. Why, ad hominum attacks, strawman constructions, the list goes on...
Meh. After you've been around this forum long enough, you start to catch on that logical arguments are wasted in certain situations. It's more fun to play with the trolls than it is to debate with them.

Personally I think God killed your horse on purpose
A thought occurs:

What if God killed your horse because somebody else prayed to God and asked Him to do it?

What if you pray to God and ask Him to do something rotten (perhaps out of frustration and anger) and God answers your prayer? Would that make you more or less likely to worship God?

I've read Dawkins, and I remain unconvinced that his primary goal is to "convert" anybody. I think Dawkins' priority is being an advocate and an out-spoken representative for the godless. Which is really nice to see, for a change.

Probably right, but in the God Delusion at least he does seem to target agnostics a bit, and I've read a fair few people saying the book converted them from agnosticism to atheism. But I agree this is not his primary goal.

Who said anything about being surprised?

A bunch of low-post-count nations filling a religion thread with astoundingly similar nonsense is pretty much the definition of "not surprising."


Meh. After you've been around this forum long enough, you start to catch on that logical arguments are wasted in certain situations. It's more fun to play with the trolls than it is to debate with them.

Well, you only have a few months on me, heh. I have to be the crotchety old-timer complaining about the 'good ol days' of when people mythically wrote thoughtful and coherent posts. Those were the days eh?

Of course, I could argue that Dawkins is hardly out-spoken, because despite connotations to the contrary, the religious Right does not dominate all things. If he is out-spoken, then he is as out-spoken as Ann Coulter. Somehow these outspoken 'advocates' make a pretty penny on people buying their books...funny that. It's pretty firmly entrenched that poking fun of Christianity is completely passe. Dig through the rest of the posts in this thread.

he got nailed to a tree for saying he was the son of god.

no he said he was the son of man

Personally I think God killed your horse on purpose
Don't you see? God killed his horse and made his life miserable so that he'd become a better christian. Because that's how a loving god gets shit done.
Jesus is....a man whore!


[yeah...figure it out!]

I don't get it, but I tell you this much, he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

I've read Dawkins, and I remain unconvinced that his primary goal is to "convert" anybody. I think Dawkins' priority is being an advocate and an out-spoken representative for the godless. Which is really nice to see, for a change.

yeah, it seems to be more about clearing some space for godlessness in the discourse. in the process there will be converts, but that is merely an effect of the space clearing (and noticing the utter lack of reason to be godfull once that space is psychologically available), rather than a primary goal.

Probably right, but in the God Delusion at least he does seem to target agnostics a bit, and I've read a fair few people saying the book converted them from agnosticism to atheism. But I agree this is not his primary goal.
Part of what Dawkins does is address misconceptions that people often carry about their own beliefs. This can result in people nominally "converting," but what really happened is that they took a second look at their own beliefs and re-evaluated.

For a while I identified as exclusively agnostic. After a while, I realized that I was actually an agnostic atheist. My beliefs hadn't changed at all, but my perception of them changed (if that makes any sense at all). Reading Dawkins was one of the many elements that led me to this conclusion. There were several ideas that I already had rattling around in my brain, but Dawkins put them into words and placed them in a larger context.

Oddly enough, one of the other authors that was very influential for this process was Aquinas. :P

Part of what Dawkins does is address misconceptions that people often carry about their own beliefs. This can result in people nominally "converting," but what really happened is that they took a second look at their own beliefs and re-evaluated.

For a while I identified as exclusively agnostic. After a while, I realized that I was actually an agnostic atheist. My beliefs hadn't changed at all, but my perception of them changed (if that makes any sense at all). Reading Dawkins was one of the many elements that led me to this conclusion. There were several ideas that I already had rattling around in my brain, but Dawkins put them into words and placed them in a larger context.

Oddly enough, one of the other authors that was very influential for this process was Aquinas. :P


You have the right to disagree, as we all do in a supposedly free society. I fail to see where there is 'trolling' on the religious side while I'm seeing references from everything to 'man whore' to other relatively obscene jokes. If that is supposed to be psychologically cleansing to parody what we don't like or understand, it's fairly under-handed for a supposedly 'enlightened' viewpoint.

Well, you only have a few months on me, heh. I have to be the crotchety old-timer complaining about the 'good ol days' of when people mythically wrote thoughtful and coherent posts. Those were the days eh?

Git awf mah lawn.

*Shakes fist*


Of course, I could argue that Dawkins is hardly out-spoken, because despite connotations to the contrary, the religious Right does not dominate all things.

I don't see how the one follows from the other.


If he is out-spoken, then he is as out-spoken as Ann Coulter.

Again, not seeing the connection. Beyond the fact that both Dawkins and Coulter piss some people off, I don't think their approaches have much in common.


Somehow these outspoken 'advocates' make a pretty penny on people buying their books...funny that.

In my opinion, making money off the sale of a book does not necessarily increase or decrease the credibility of the contents therein.


It's pretty firmly entrenched that poking fun of Christianity is completely passe.

So's physical comedy. Doesn't stop it from being entertaining, when done right.


Dig through the rest of the posts in this thread.
As long as there are Christians who insist on saying and doing extremely goofy things, there will be people who get the giggles poking fun at Christians. Such is humanity.

You have the right to disagree, as we all do in a supposedly free society. I fail to see where there is 'trolling' on the religious side while I'm seeing references from everything to 'man whore' to other relatively obscene jokes. If that is supposed to be psychologically cleansing to parody what we don't like or understand, it's fairly under-handed for a supposedly 'enlightened' viewpoint.
I have absolutely no idea what this reply has to do with the post of mine that you quoted.

Meh. After you've been around this forum long enough, you start to catch on that logical arguments are wasted in certain situations. It's more fun to play with the trolls than it is to debate with them.

That is what I meant by the reference, unless you were submitting it as a general statement and not about the 1 post wonders up above.

EDIT: Stuff I read and don't want to clog with quoting...

Well, saying all that, what the hell is the point of this thread then except as a playground for trolls? If it's supposed to be about debate or whatever, the jokes are little different from flaming as far as I see it.

Anyways, I guess I'll reply more extensively to you later about it. Time for my old man nap.

(You people post too fast. Deleted for double-posting!)

i believe jesus was real. but not a miracle worker as he is described in the bible.

Well, saying all that, what the hell is the point of this thread then except as a playground for trolls? If it's supposed to be about debate or whatever, the jokes are little different from flaming as far as I see it.

I think you may be on to something here.

i believe jesus was real. but not a miracle worker as he is described in the bible.

It is not only Bottle's spidey sense that is tingling....

That is what I meant by the reference, unless you were submitting it as a general statement and not about the 1 post wonders up above.
It is both, I suppose.

If somebody with 8 total posts contributes a Wall-O-Text screed about how Jeebus is Lord, my first impulse is not to engage them in a lengthy philosophical discussion. Maybe that's just my jaded geezer nature kicking in.

It's like how I've long since lost interest in having "discussions" with the folks who post one-liners about how God didn't make Adam and Steve, or how a fetus has a heartbeat and can write symphonies at 30 seconds after implantation, or how all Muzlums is terrorists, or any like brilliance.

Well, saying all that, what the hell is the point of this thread then except as a playground for trolls? If it's supposed to be about debate or whatever, the jokes are little different from flaming as far as I see it.

I assume, because of my trusting and optimistic nature, that the thread founder was genuinely curious about the topic.

Personally, I do think it's an interesting line of conversation. Even if you confine the discussion only to Christians, you STILL can get some really interesting debates about who/what Jesus was, and what the significance of Jesus' divinity really is.

I think you may be on to something here.

Thank you, heh.


It is both, I suppose.

If somebody with 8 total posts contributes a Wall-O-Text screed about how Jeebus is Lord, my first impulse is not to engage them in a lengthy philosophical discussion. Maybe that's just my jaded geezer nature kicking in.

It's like how I've long since lost interest in having "discussions" with the folks who post one-liners about how God didn't make Adam and Steve, or how a fetus has a heartbeat and can write symphonies at 30 seconds after implantation, or how all Muzlums is terrorists, or any like brilliance.

I suppose I could say the same about "Man, God is such a @#$%er" or "Hey, Jesus is a manwhore/pimp/whatever". Brilliant stuff it is. Unfortunately, contrary to popular opinion stupidity does not know any national/ethnic/religious/ideological boundaries.

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them! But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

EDIT: As for your above statement...yeah, that might have been the point (I hope so), but look at where it turned to now. I would say the conversation got a bit derailed, don't you think?

It took FOUR pages to get to this answer. -sigh-


Jesus is:
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Gate (John 10:9)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
True Bread (John 6:32)
True Light (John 1:9)
True Vine (John 15:1)
Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
Way (John 14:6)
Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Word (John 1:1)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)

Above all, He is my best friend, and my love.

And I thought it was Paul who was 'all things to all men'. :D

But if witnesses all claim a person did something and there is no DNA, the court will have to believe the testimonies. It's similar with the Bible.

Here's a quote from Herodotus's histories:

I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

Herodotus is often described as the 'father of history' (although in my humble opinion this title belongs to Thucydides) and his accounts of other things such as the Persian crossing of the Hellespont have been confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy. He is known to have travelled in the area and is apparently describing the beliefs of people who would have witnessed the events if they'd occured.

Should we believe his stories of winged serpents?

In the light of this, should we blindly accept the accounts of anonymous, first century (and possibly very early second century in the case of John) Christian writers with an agenda?

It took FOUR pages to get to this answer. -sigh-

Jesus is:
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Gate (John 10:9)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
True Bread (John 6:32)
True Light (John 1:9)
True Vine (John 15:1)
Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
Way (John 14:6)
Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Word (John 1:1)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)

Above all, He is my best friend, and my love.

You, Sir, are a zealot.

I found Jesus, he was under the cushions of the couch.

My personal opinion:

Jesus almost certainly wasn't God or a miracle worker, he was just another apocalyptic preacher out of many who were wandering around Judea at the time. The Gospels are based around a broadly factual core, but they are closer to theological treatises than real history in many regards. For example, the Jesus' wandering in the desert might have been based on a real event, but the story of his temptation is just an inverted retelling of the fall of man in Eden.

On the other hand, I also reject the idea that Jesus the man never existed (although I don't think it's as absurd as many people suggest). There was clearly a strong tradition of Jesus having grown up in Nazareth, which wouldn't make sense in the light of Tanach prophecy as the Messiah is to be born in the City of David. Both 'Luke' and 'Matthew' had to devise elaborate justifications for Jesus living in Nazareth while still having been born in Bethlehem, which to me suggests that there was a real Jesus who lived in Nazareth. Another point would be the naked man in Mark's account of Gethsemane: there's no apparent narrative point and it's so strange that it's probably true.

...
Herodotus is often described as the 'father of history' (although in my humble opinion this title belongs to Thucydides) and his accounts of other things such as the Persian crossing of the Hellespont have been confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy. He is known to have travelled in the area and is apparently describing the beliefs of people who would have witnessed the events if they'd occured.

Should we believe his stories of winged serpents?

In the light of this, should we blindly accept the accounts of anonymous, first century (and possibly very early second century in the case of John) Christian writers with an agenda?

Instead of comparing the Christian writers to Herodotus, a Greek who lived from 450 to 550 years before them, why not Thucydides whom you seem to honor a bit more? But instead of even that, why not someone of their contemporaries? In light of this, why don't we accept their accounts in the same way we do Josephus, Livy, Tacitus or Cassius Dio? By your logic, why accept the account of Julius Caesar since he had such an agenda? Do we compare him to Herodotus, no, we do not.

That is a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it, but it is more valid than using Herodotus as an example about why we should distrust 1st century Christian writers.

My favorite is Thomas.
Its thought to be the earliest one, and contains no mention of miracles, ressurection, or Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.
It was thought to have been written about 40 A.D.
This means this text is probably closest to who the man Jesus really was.
The only title he is referred to by is "Rabbi"....Teacher.

It's been dated at anywhere between 40AD and the late second century. It might be early, it might be late, I don't know enough about it to hazard an informed opinion.

Instead of comparing the Christian writers to Herodotus, a Greek who lived from 450 to 550 years before them, why not Thucydides whom you seem to honor a bit more? But instead of even that, why not someone of their contemporaries? In light of this, why don't we accept their accounts in the same way we do Josephus, Livy, Tacitus or Cassius Dio? By your logic, why accept the account of Julius Caesar since he had such an agenda? Do we compare him to Herodotus, no, we do not.

That is a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it, but it is more valid than using Herodotus as an example about why we should distrust 1st century Christian writers.

Herodotus is my standard response to anyone who over-values the worth of eyewitnesses in general. If you want a more contemporary example I'll have to dig out my Suetonius and Tacitus. :p

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. At first Vespasian ridiculed
and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand
he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was
induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers
to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians
should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within
the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different
points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight
was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were
removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased
condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied;
such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor
might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate,
all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the
ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian,
supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that
nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid
the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished
what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and
the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present
attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

2 Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. 3 Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.

Two acclaimed historians, writing very close to the time and with the assistance of eyewitnesses, agree that Vespasian had supernatural powers of healing. Should we believe them?

On a related note, I never suggested that we ignore every piece of writing which has an agenda (if we did then we wouldn't have any history), this is a misrepresentation of my position. We must not accept writings with an agenda uncritically and we take their agenda into account. In Julius' case he sometimes skips over extremely important events which might show him in a poor light and we must take account of this.

As to why I didn't use Thucydides as an example, it's because he tried to write history without recourse to the supernatural. This is why I consider him to be the true father of history.

None of the cannon Gospels were as late at 160AD, Irenaeus wrote of all four, Matthew Mark Luke and John as traditional text as early as 130AD, so they must have been written long enough before 130 for him to think of them as ‘traditional.’ Link http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

That's quite an achievement given that the very earliest date suggested for Irenaeus' birth is around 115AD (making him 15 at the time of writing) and the latest is about 140AD (making him -10 :eek:).

I think you're misreading your link in that it's giving (one possible) year of his birth rather than the year of writing. If you're thinking what I'm thinking then you're refering to his 'Against Heresies' which was written in 185AD if I recall correctly and features rather a poetic statement that "just as there are four winds and four corners of the Earth, so there are four Gospels, pillars upon which the faith rests" (I'm paraphrasing from memory here as I don't have my copy to hand).

One day, Jesus said to his disciples, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like 3x2 + 8x - 9."
A man who had just joined the disciples looked very confused and asked Peter, "What on Earth does he mean by that?"
Peter replied, "Don't worry, it's just another one of his parabolas."

I feel such a geek for laughing at this. :D

I feel such a geek for laughing at this. :D

You are not alone.

That's quite an achievement given that the very earliest date suggested for Irenaeus' birth is around 115AD (making him 15 at the time of writing) and the latest is about 140AD (making him -10 :eek:).

I think you're misreading your link in that it's giving (one possible) year of his birth rather than the year of writing. If you're thinking what I'm thinking then you're refering to his 'Against Heresies' which was written in 185AD if I recall correctly and features rather a poetic statement that "just as there are four winds and four corners of the Earth, so there are four Gospels, pillars upon which the faith rests" (I'm paraphrasing from memory here as I don't have my copy to hand).

Ah, good point and good catch.

I am almost never in agreement with your positions but I find that I would without a doubt benefit with you as an editor of my work, you are a very good proof reader ;) Thank you, *bows*

As to the point though, yes, I was thinking of Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 11) 175-185AD, (not 130AD as I had posted earlier, corrected thanks to RLI Rides Again).

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί ) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

My point still stands solidly though about none of the canon gospels being as late as 160AD.

Ah, good point and good catch.

I am almost never in agreement with your positions but I find that I would without a doubt benefit with you as an editor of my work, you are a very good proof reader ;) Thank you, *bows*

Ah, stop it, you're making me blush. :p

As to the point though, yes, I was thinking of Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 11) 175-185AD, (not 130AD as I had posted earlier, corrected thanks to RLI Rides Again).

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί ) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

My point still stands solidly though about none of the canon gospels being as late as 160AD.

And on this occasion I agree with you.

And he shall be called...
Advocate
Lamb of God
The Ressurection & The Life
Sheperd and Bishop of Souls
Judge
Lord of Lords
Man of Sorrows
Head of the Church
Master
Faithful & True Witness
Rock
High Priest
The Door
Living Water
Bread of Life
Rose of Sharon
Alpha & Omega
True Vine
MESSIAH
Teacher
Holy One
Mediator
The Beloved
Branch
Carpentor
Good Shepard
Light of the World
Image of the invisible God
The World
Cheif Cornerstone
Saviour
Servent
Author and Finisher of our Faith
The Almighty
Everlasting Father
Shiloh
Lion of the Tribe of Judah
I Am
King of Kings
Prince of Peace
Bridegroom
Only Begotten Son of the one true God
Wonderful Counselor
Immanuel
Son of Man
Dayspring
The Amen
King of the Jews
Prophet
Redeemer
Anchor
Bright Morning Star
The Way
Truth and The Life

JESUS CRIST

My personal favorite would be "Alpha and Omega". Does anyone know exactly what that means?


EDIT: Got this from a poster. Just saw that someone else did a much better version and wanted to say I'm sorry if you feel like I'm copying you. It's not intended, I just hit reply at the end of the first page without reading any posts with this in mind. Once again, sorry.

Jesus doesn't like threads like this.

If the witnesses are all contradictory, their evidence fails. If the testimony is uncorroborated, it fails. If the evidence is hearsay, it isn't even admissible. Since the earliest written biblical accounts are a generation or two after the alleged events (i.e. hearsay) and contradictory and uncorroborated, thus it's useless as evidence. It's makes so-so mythology (the Greeks did better) but, that's about it.

And he shall be called...
Advocate
Lamb of God
The Ressurection & The Life
Sheperd and Bishop of Souls
Judge
Lord of Lords
Man of Sorrows
Head of the Church
Master
Faithful & True Witness
Rock
High Priest
The Door
Living Water
Bread of Life
Rose of Sharon
Alpha & Omega
True Vine
MESSIAH
Teacher
Holy One
Mediator
The Beloved
Branch
Carpentor
Good Shepard
Light of the World
Image of the invisible God
The World
Cheif Cornerstone
Saviour
Servent
Author and Finisher of our Faith
The Almighty
Everlasting Father
Shiloh
Lion of the Tribe of Judah
I Am
King of Kings
Prince of Peace
Bridegroom
Only Begotten Son of the one true God
Wonderful Counselor
Immanuel
Son of Man
Dayspring
The Amen
King of the Jews
Prophet
Redeemer
Anchor
Bright Morning Star
The Way
Truth and The Life

JESUS CRIST

My personal favorite would be "Alpha and Omega". Does anyone know exactly what that means?


EDIT: Got this from a poster. Just saw that someone else did a much better version and wanted to say I'm sorry if you feel like I'm copying you. It's not intended, I just hit reply at the end of the first page without reading any posts with this in mind. Once again, sorry.

You are clearly a devoted servant, as you cannot even spell "Christ."

If the witnesses are all contradictory, their evidence fails. If the testimony is uncorroborated, it fails. If the evidence is hearsay, it isn't even admissible. Since the earliest written biblical accounts are a generation or two after the alleged events (i.e. hearsay) and contradictory and uncorroborated, thus it's useless as evidence. It's makes so-so mythology (the Greeks did better) but, that's about it.
Meh, I prefer the Norse.

And he shall be called...
Advocate
Lamb of God
The Ressurection & The Life
Sheperd and Bishop of Souls
Judge
Lord of Lords
Man of Sorrows
Head of the Church
Master
Faithful & True Witness
Rock
High Priest
The Door
Living Water
Bread of Life
Rose of Sharon
Alpha & Omega
True Vine
MESSIAH
Teacher
Holy One
Mediator
The Beloved
Branch
Carpentor
Good Shepard
Light of the World
Image of the invisible God
The World
Cheif Cornerstone
Saviour
Servent
Author and Finisher of our Faith
The Almighty
Everlasting Father
Shiloh
Lion of the Tribe of Judah
I Am
King of Kings
Prince of Peace
Bridegroom
Only Begotten Son of the one true God
Wonderful Counselor
Immanuel
Son of Man
Dayspring
The Amen
King of the Jews
Prophet
Redeemer
Anchor
Bright Morning Star
The Way
Truth and The Life

JESUS CRIST

My personal favorite would be "Alpha and Omega". Does anyone know exactly what that means?


EDIT: Got this from a poster. Just saw that someone else did a much better version and wanted to say I'm sorry if you feel like I'm copying you. It's not intended, I just hit reply at the end of the first page without reading any posts with this in mind. Once again, sorry.

You are clearly a devoted servant, as you cannot even spell "Christ."

A brilliant philosopher who was far too advanced in thinking to survive his age, just as many others before and after him. Regardless of your religious views, a great philosophy is a great philosophy.

I found Jesus, he was behind the couch the whole time.

You are establishing who you think Jesus was with the same books you later attack as not credible.

HAH! Nice try.
Using to the bible to examine similarities on who Jesus may have been and attempting to claim he had supernatural abilities are two completely different things.
Its easy to assume he was a Rabbi. Attempting to say he performed miracles is not.





But these are the exact same books that say he also performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead, how can you justify that discrepancy? How do we to discern what you have? That only the parts of the story that we want to believe are correct and the other stuff is simply made up?

You make the mistake of only assuming I was speaking of books accepted by Rome. Such books were accepted becuase they shared common themes. Ones that did not, were not considered "Canon", such as Thomas, wich is thought to be the earliest one.



It is not a given that canon Gospel books are 70 years after Jesus resurrection at the earliest.

No, it is not a given. Thats the terrible truth of these books, is that thier origins are indeed, unknown. The authors, and the dates of creation, are unknown. Intelligent people would take this into consideration when deciding if indeed, they contain "the word of GOD."