jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (81 posts)

Hot Button Topic

  1. profile image0
    riddle666posted 4 years ago

    Imagine me as a feudal landlord and you my tenants.
    I'm angry at some of the things you do. So I time to time kill a good majority of you. My son got fed up of this and offered himself to die in place of you. And I killed him knowIngly. If anyone of you believe that he is my son, I''ll spare you otherwise I''ll kill you all.
    So do I love you?
    Did I love my son?
    Atleast one Christian told me (Genaea), she want to know whether her kids are 'disobedient' to the question would she kill her kids. Another (ak-dj) could find no fault in killing a father for his son's crimes. All these christians say if I do all those things desrIbed above, I'll be a 'loving father' to my tenants and son. So, have these Christians got no idea what love or forgiveness is?
    Divine comedy?

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why they don't see your logic is beyond my comprehension.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because to believe that strongly is to dispell logic where it actually matters.

    2. Any Other Voice profile image60
      Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What if you were the one who gave the tenants life as well as a whole world to inhabit? What if you promised them even more than that after they passed to the next life?
      And what if your son knew his life was sacrificed for a cause he himself truly believed in? And what if you raised your son from the dead shortly afterward?
      Also, what if you were using a logic beyond human comprehension, driven by love deeper than any science can explain?
      What if you're completely missing the point? Oh wait, sorry, that's impossible with human "logic", because it never errs.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just because I gave the tenants a place to live and work, entitle me to beat them?

        Will you allow me to beat your kid, if I promise to give him chocolate?
        If he cannot tolerate them in this life, how could he in next life?

        We are not discussing the sons character, but the father's. You love bull fights?


        You think logic is comprehension?

        No god ever told all that. It is the christian priests and missionaries who tell all these. So it should be logical. And why do you assume an all powerful god will make a fool of himself?

        1. Any Other Voice profile image60
          Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Only one person is making a fool of himself here.

          The tenants beat each other up anyway. Just look at human morality these days, and you're trying to judge who again? God?

          God (n): the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

          This metaphor has been degenerating from the start. The mere definition of God explains why he should not be put [logically] in human terms, as he is believed to be "non-human".

          Look, I'm fine with atheists/agnostics having their own beliefs, and I respect logical reasoning (it's not like I'm utterly devoid of it). But when you so obviously and openly lampoon a specific group, that calls your own probity into question.

          1. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That explains.


            What the tenants are doing has nothing to do with the landlord’s behavior. Just because the students are unruly doesn’t give the teacher the authority to beat them up.


            Who told you I'm judging 'god'. The landlord is the Christian version, which is not god. I’m judging the Christian version of god, if you call it ‘judging’ but I'm questioning the logicality of what they preach.


            Then you ought to explain/define wisdom, goodness, creation and ruler of universe, because the definition does not say "above logic or "a foolish psychopathic murderer".



            Who told you I’m an atheist or agnost? Any group when they put their belief for public display and consumption, can be and should be questioned about the logicality of their “beliefs”.

            1. Any Other Voice profile image60
              Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              People will always openly and secretly attack Christians, next time, please come up with a better way of putting it, because this is just starting to come off as childish. Especially the way you inserted sneaky ad-hominem near the end just to call off two people.

              I'm done here. Whatever you want for your life, you can have it- I'm officially not part of it anymore.

              1. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Isn't this you call 'sneaky ad hominem'?
                Any Other Voice wrote: "Only one person is making a fool of himself here."

                Any Other Voice wrote: " next time, please come up with a better way of putting it, because this is just starting to come off as childish."
                Unfortunately, that is what your christian beliefs appear like, childish.

                Any Other Voice wrote: "I'm done here."
                The usual cop out of christians when faced with reason.

                Any Other Voice wrote:"Whatever you want for your life, you can have it- I'm officially not part of it anymore"
                You were never part of my life, so what is this 'anymore'?

                1. Any Other Voice profile image60
                  Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha. This is hilarious.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Human morality these days is a result of centuries of religious thought and rule. Who else can we judge for such incompetence?

      2. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What if all of your particular what-ifs were not provable, and some quite illogical indeed?

        What about the very fact that this god you're referring to chooses to be distant from us? (If He is too "holy" to be in the presence of mortals lest we die, why doesn't he just create some sort of spiritual shield, make it so that we can all see and expereince him at the same time more or less, so that, at least if we rebel, we know that we were all shown the truth in a way that we could each easily understand and perceive it. I'm not talking about some man preaching for a couple years with a few radically "new" ideas, and new is pushing it.)

        Why did He create evil?

        Why does He expect us to believe whatever some old ancient book not much different from many others (except for how many people were killed and threatened/forced to accept as their truth)? Certainly He would know that everyone wasn't going to be ok with being gullible (easy to believe certain things with no real proof. And I do mean real proof, not subjective, emotional, uninformed "proof.") because certain people are thinkers, quick to question, and some people are more willing to believe things in general (that's called personality differences, amongst other things).

        1. Any Other Voice profile image60
          Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm happy to see you have so many questions; I am obliged to remind you that the entire Internet is at your disposal, not just me. If you think the meaning of life is significant enough to you, feel free to ask around and research.

          After you know both sides of the debate, I encourage you to choose what you think is best for you.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image80
            A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, believe you me, I was on the other side of the debate for 6 years. And I know more about it now than I did then because I removed my own subjective and emotional bias.

            1. Any Other Voice profile image60
              Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As a human, you can NEVER remove your own subjective bias.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image80
                A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This world exists devoid of any explanation we try to give of how it got here or any terms we use to explain it. It's exists apart from any "views" we may hold of it, but mainly uninformed, mystical views that are fill-in-the-gap natured and common in more ancient societies that didn't have the kind of tools and knowledge that we have today. Our "views" become less and less subjective as our understanding becomes less about how good, safe, mystic, secure the explanations seem or make us feel or how connected they are to any notion of something that exists outside of this plane and feed our emotional needs/stability, etc, and become more about simply explaining what happens, what is knowledge for all to attain understand, not just a select few with mystical/divine "help."

                People used to think that a sneeze was your spirit temporarily jumping out of your body, and so to keep the devil from entering in, they said "bless you." We now know that a sneeze is nothing but "an explosive expulsion of air" that happens typically because of an allergen or sickness. Now, if someone still wanted to hold onto the notion that the spirit leaves the body, whose view is less subjective? The spirit leaves the body, or an explosive expulsion of air? What proof is there for the former? The latter? Which examples feeds a an extravagant idea, and which seeks to do nothing but state an obvious happening and has no ulterior motive, needs no special explanation, has no emotional attachment?

              2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                As a believer, you can remove your indoctrination in order to be objective and have no bias at all.

                1. Any Other Voice profile image60
                  Any Other Voiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Who says I was indoctrinated? Maybe I started out atheist? Or Buddhist?

                  You know nothing about me. But here's one thing: I have no more time for petty arguments, because this isn't going to change my life or my views on it, and I'm sure that applies for all of you.

                  1. profile image0
                    riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Who asked you to come here,  anyway?
                    Wasn't it your own choice?
                    What did you expect, if not arguments, that people will bow perceiving your greatness?

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Indoctrination doesn't necessarily always start in adolescence. It doesn't take too much time at all, actually. Especially (but not only) when you're emotionally vulnerable.

                    But you came here because you thought you might share something "new," right? Open our eyes to another way of thinking? Now that you know it didn't work, you leave? Ah, you're no fun. Discussion is discussion. If I left everytime someone dismissed some perspective I introduced, oh man, I'd never be on here. And yet, here I am. wink

      3. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        At the very least, I wouldn't demand worship and praise for doing that and would make it unconditional.



        Usually, when someone sacrifices themselves for a cause, they stay dead. By showing up three days later, the event becomes nothing more than a cheap magicians trick, the lady who gets sawed in half and then re-emerges from the box whole again.



        Logic is logic, and it is not driven by love.



        We can already see your God's so-called 'logic' has already failed. Of course, that logic was certainly enough to fool the ignorant and gullible of that time when the world was ruled by superstitions and myths.

    3. kess profile image61
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Neither you nor the christian understand the father son relationship.
      Death is the beginning not the end...therefore the son needs to die.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The son is the father of a man and the beginning of the end is the end of the beginning.
        Those who don't understand understand better than than those who understand yet not understand and still claims understanding.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Son and father is and will always be One.
          Their apparent separation makes them appear as Father and son.
          This is the beginning.

          The human father son relationship  mimic this, but not fully
          .
          Those who understand this will call no man Father.
          This they will do because they understand Both Father and son
          Beginning and End.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, those who understand Christianity will never call any man Father? Christians don't call their father Father?

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A christian cannot understand christianity...otherwise they would ceasefrom  being christian

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And I thought I was lost before.

                1. kess profile image61
                  kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Accepting that y ou u are lost /blind will cause you to see..

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Kess, you clearly have a lot to say and I'm sure it's good stuff, but I just don't understand it most of the time.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            None of that makes a bit of sense.

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You did not need to put your hand up.......
              I have heard you a long long time ago

          3. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The one always the two,
            and the two one
            when father is the son and son is the father
            when the spring is the summer and summer the winter
            Seasons will begin and the one will know
            and the knowing is the end
            and the end is the birth.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? There is no father/son relationship I've ever heard of reality where the son needs to die. That's just pure evil.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Since death to you is the end, you fear it, thus evil begins in you...and all who thinks like you do.

          The dead will always be mindful of death...
          Be mindful of life and live.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So Atheists are the only people who fear death? You should hear yourself sometimes.

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Are you atheist?i
              iI have heard myself...do you hear yourself.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ah, so I'm fearful and evil, and so is everyone else who thinks. Brilliant.



            Gibberish.

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What is brilliant?
              What is gibberish?
              Is it your post or mine?

              A spring never flow both clean and dirty at the same time.
              If it is clean it has to power to clense you.
              If it dirty it does not have the power to dirty you.

              If it clean you do have the power to dirty it...

              but when you and it is clean or dirty, then All is clean or dirty,

              So what is brilliant or gibberish?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                'Twas brillig, and the slivy toves



                Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;



                All mimsy were the borogoves,



                And the mome raths outgrabe.



                "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!



                "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  OMG!

                  That made me laugh so hard my stomach hurts now, and I need a cigarette.

                  Brilliant.

                2. kess profile image61
                  kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly.....

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ha ha ha Kess you made me laugh as well. Thanks for being a good sport.

      3. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I fail to see the logic after the therefore in your statement. You're willing to murder a son to show God that you believe death is the beginning? I have a completely different version of ethics and morality and possibly reality then you do because I would protect all of my three boys with my life, and I would do the same if I had daughters. The good book is not helping you with morality or ethics. Remember that the OT was propaganda to give Jewish men a sense of entitlement and relieve them of their possession of their actions.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You fail to see my logic therefore you remain blinded.

          Everything that followed that first statement is from a blinded eyes and expected

    4. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
      A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      1. Your translation program let you down.

      2. You need a better translation program.

      3. In the book of Ezekiel, it says that a son is not responsible for the sins of the father, each is responsible for his own sins.

      4. You know better than that. Why play games? If you have a franchise on the truth, what is it?

  2. profile image0
    riddle666posted 4 years ago

    They differ when they say about the things done by Jesus. They disagree on the day of death. They disagree on what jesus said during his death. They disagree about the people who saw jesus after death
    They disagree just like any other story.  When stories are exchanged people add their own versions. And each subsequent gospels added a little extra and by John, Jesus became a full blown god.

    All. Almost all gospels started at the same time, though written at different periods. All different sects thought different things about Jesus because either there was no real Jesus, or because he was famous posthumously only. By the time he got a decent following, the stories couldn't be verified. Even if they could, nobody bothered. Why should anyone doubt their god? Just because the dominant sect, the sect with most number of followers were selected by Constantine, you got that and argue for it. The rest were suppressed by the victors and the vanquished were said as from satan..

    The sources you said say there were Christians who believed such. It made the Christians historical, not Jesus.
    Charlatans were caught? Homeopathy, sooth saying, astrology numerology....... I cannot count all those things that have no value, are glorified charlatanism. Only if the charlatan is incompetent they are caught. Again people go to all these out of belief , and that is also the same thing religions are doing.

    Well compared to the conspiracy theories in your hub, this is nothing, especially considering that it was christians themselves who destroyed ancient books and burned libraries. The pious fanatics wrote so many books about jesus, but failed to agree and hence they got a 1000 denominations differing from each other, but agreed that all except theirs is heresy.

    But the spirit told me it is vaishnavism that I should follow.

    The question is what part you not understand. I never said all these stories are exact copies. What I said is just like people got a myriad of gods like imhotep, zeus, amunra...they got jesus too. They are pure myths or exaggerated stories about somebody who actually lived.The basic frame work, the mode of development of the stories was the same. Now what does it matter whether a god resurrected or not? How can a god die?
    Resurrection of souls is just nonsense because there is no soul. What we are, the “I” is our brain, without it there is no I. So what is this soul that is resurrecting? And what is this “death” and “resurrection”, what does that really mean?

    Are you not listening? This is what I wrote “For paul there was no earthly jesus.” For Paul there was only a spiritual Jesus. Paul stood for a heavenly jesus while the gospel Jesus are earthly. And the gospels made Jesus more goddish. The earliest one, proto-mark is near human jesus who was just the anointed one. Just like your god dying and resurrecting his spiritual jesus dead and rose, what is the difference?
    And was not in Jerusalem when a Jesus was crucified? That is convenient. All devote Jews goes to Jerusalem for the festival, and Paul a devote and fanatic jew a pharisee didn't go? He didn't hear anything about the earthly jesus?
    “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:12 Paul plainly says he made it all up.

    It was noted as a historical fact that there were christians who believed such, not Jesus.

    I never said they are lunatics. They believed Jesus for the same reason people believed Gnostics, Allah, Imhotep, Jupiter.......

    No you are not. You didn’t tell how jesus death conquer death. All you have is some fantastic opinions.
    If Jesus is a human, how did his death benefit us?
    If jesus is God, what do death mean for him? What is that died?

    Isn’t that what I told? To attract more followers church introduced more pagan rituals. Jesus alone was not sufficient to bring followers.

    What do you mean by knowledge, especially divine knowledge?? The best way to make your opponents look bad is to say they are from satan and that is what you are doing.

    If I go to a place knowing that I could get killed there, then that means I am bent on martyrdom. People get inspired by ideas and can die for it. If that behavior makes it a truth, then communism and LTTE of Srilanka has the ultimate truth, not to mention the perpetrators of 9/11.

    A resurrection story does just that, make the Jesus glamorous.

    For laugh?.  Why Jesus was better than pagan gods? The same reason Allah is better than Jesus. You are the person who says all except Christians are incapable of thinking. What I said is it is not ‘thinking’ but emotions and confirmation bias that make people believe. Christianity spread with the help of weapons and treachery, not by inherent goodness.
    If you said Elvis rose, I won’t believe you. But if you say that with sufficient fanfare and with a plausible story some people would. It is difficult now because we have more information and can verify information. That was not so 2000 years before. Jesus arose and thrived just like any other god. And you forgot the recent Keech story I mentioned? People believed him.  Mormons believed when smith told he got a book. Why not the few Jews and pagans that were converted then?

    Isaiah was not a single person. It was written by people over two centuries which were later collected. He was lamenting the fate of Israel. The sheep might as well be Cyrus who was god’s shepherd who later got killed by Masagatai. Or it may be the beginning of a jesus story, the Messiah who died for sins. You said Isaiah didn’t get it entirely correct, on the other hand, it is the one who tried to manipulate the prophesy later who didn’t get it correctly. And when there is a prophesy it is easy to make a story that fit the prophesy and jesus story is the example. The death and resurrection is entirely made out to fit the prophesy.

    No I was telling you that by mis-translations and later editing and adding stories is how a legend can be created. The marginal writings of later authors were included in the textbook. So when it was oral tradition it was easier to create such stories. Why even now there are stories about great people that never happened.
    Now regarding hate,
    Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.


    Matthew 10:37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
    You say both these are the same and it was the translators that got it wrong. But isn’t the translator same for Luke and Mathew? Why the translator corrected the saying only in Mathew and not Luke? You are telling me that you are guided by spirit hence you know it while 14 or so English translators and 6 other language translators are guided by satan. Ridiculous isn’t it?

    If I make a child rob something, am I responsible or the child responsible. If under the influence of satan humans do bad things, satan is responsible. And by simply eliminating satan god can remove all evil from this world and if he is not doing it, then god is ultimately responsible for all the evil, vicarious responsibility.

    Your free will also I’m including here.
    You are not at all listening. We have to make decisions, either consciously or unconsciously.  And it is the emotions that help us decide. Yes to love or not to love is a decision which is made subconsciously. Say you have an apple and orange. You can take either one. Which one you will take is depended on your brain structure, (some tastes are genetically determined) and experience. Suppose, say last time when you took an apple there were full of worms, and then you might be taking the orange this time. Neither the brain structure nor your emotions based on the previous experience you can control, you just respond. By constantly exposing yourself to some stimuli you can modify the emotions and hence decisions, but your decision to expose is also not under your control.
    So what shall god decide?
    Child trafficking? That too was considered normal sometime before. Whatever you mentioned were considered normal for some people at some point of time. For them that was not wrong. How can they be punished for something which they didn’t know was wrong?

    Not only sexual but no emotions. Emotions are needed only to make decisions.

    You are doing it though. You have a god who is an imaginary parent with whom you are “communicating”.  The only problem is, it is your own opinions you project  as god’s message.

    Only some people are lucky to feel to do something about it, not all. Again depression and anxiety can motivate people to consider them abnormal and get expert help. Rage is totally uncontrollable unlike anger. During rage intelligence is froze, the person cannot think. Other problems, people do not feel like they need treatment, they think they are normal. Even normal people who have some problems do not think they have problems, let alone psychotics.
    How you rationalized the “sell your belongings”. Similarly no person can see the “wrong” they are doing. They have perfect justification why that was the right thing to do.

    Not sin, but only the urge to procreate and eat. Sin, right and wrong are creations by society to make a society work. For god, he should know that the person can behave only one way in a given situation. If the same situation arises again, he may behave differently depending whether the previous experience was pleasurable or not.
    But for man as society it is not possible. Society works on a set of rules. Those that are done in accordance are good and against are wrong. So he cannot inquire why a man behaved like. But we too sometimes do it, we forgive somebody because of his emotional situation or when it was done accidently. Why most people do not do wrong? Because most people are similar, that is in the normal range. Those who are outside the range are either called criminals or saints depending on which side we like.
    Why two people in the same situation behave differently? Because their brain structures are different. If two people have the same brain structure, they have different experience to make them different. So we have a wide range of permutations and combinations of behavior. And this is what gives the illusion of free will.

    It is imploding, isnt it?More and more people are turning away from christianity. Over the centuaries it spread with the help of brute force and kept intact by weapons.  Allah , hindu story, buddha storydidn't implode, so true? Beliefs that mesmerized rulers and helped them retain power can only be vanquished by more fanatic beliefs or education.

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just elaborate a bit, please.




      What absolute nonsense.  All the gospels acknowledge Him as the son of God.  So how did each gospel add a little extra that finally led to him being a "full blown" god by John?






      Eye-witnesses were still alive at the time Christians were heavily persecuted.  Clearly a decent following had been established to be a threat to Nero who persecuted them in 64 AD.   You seem to have the impression that when eye-witnesses weren't around anymore that it meant the stories were redundant.  How, imagine if every historical figure was treated like that! You ask why would anyone doubt their God? Most atheists have been Christians before and obviously they "doubted" their god.  Don't just assume all Christians were gullible and brain-washed sheep completely void of any reasoning. 





      "CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
      hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

      "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

      As a historian, he did not write about hearsay.  As a historian he would have written, should he have believed that Jesus was a mere fictional god, "Christus, the god of the Christianity, is believed to have been put to death...."



      You appear to think that one charlatan was responsible for the whole of Christianity.  Yes, we can get a fortune teller who gets caught out in lies but for all the eye-witnesses to be charlatans orchestrating a grand conspiracy? It seems to be a stretch.






      I'm talking about the early Christians not those who burnt books.







      You are going around in circles.  I have already answered this.   As I said, you are not objective.  If you were, you may turn into a person like CS Lewis.



      The brain can we deemed as a modem to the soul.   If your modem of your computer is broken and your computer cannot access the Internet, it doesn't mean neither of them no longer exist.  The brain is part of our body that allows our soul to manifest in this dimension.   In another dimension, the soul is completely independent.   But, of course, we have Neath Death Experiences but that is a whole new topic.





      I'm sorry, but did you just miss part what Paul wrote that refuted what you just claimed?

      Galatians 4:4
      English Standard Version (ESV)
      4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

      This does not allude to a spiritual Jesus.  The gospels were firmly in place by the time Paul came onto the scene.  He agreed with the gospels.



      I would imagine it is because Jesus was just another common criminal and was not worthy of paying attention to.  It's not as if he was present at the place where Jesus was condemned and followed Him carrying His cross.  I don't think Pharisees took note of all Jewish criminals. 




      No, He received a revelation from Jesus on the road to Damascus through a vision.  It does not mean he made it up because he didn't meet Jesus while He was alive.






      You are giving me the impression that you believed early Christians were like David Koresh followers.  Irrational and gullible and completely void of any reason.   People grow up to believe in Allah, etc, but the early Christians did not grow up to follow a failed messiah.  They expected a messiah that would rule Israel. 






      If Jesus is a human, how did his death benefit us?

      Jesus conquered death because it proved that those who love Him have eternal life as they are resurrected from the dead in a glorified body.  Jesus proved that the forgiveness of sins means that death has been conquered. 




      Death for Him meant the death of anyone who has flesh.  His earthly body died.  It is in death that sin leads us to hell.  When He died, He descended into hell because He took on all the sin of the world.  God cannot be anywhere near sin so Jesus was in hell because hell is the complete separation from God.   However, Jesus proved that we can have life if we are cleansed of our sins.   It is because Jesus took on our sin and went to hell on our behalf that we don't have to have that fate if we truly repent.   






      Jesus alone was enough to establish Christianity way before the Catholic Church started.   It is despite the Catholic Church Christianity survived for they have corrupted Christianity. 






      Divine knowledge is knowledge that can teach one to become Christ, another divine god. People who strive for this believe a new consciousness will awaken the third eye and they can become a god.
      Do you really believe Satanist Aleister Crowley would introduce the Gnostic mass?

      This is what he said: "Satan! Cry Aloud! Thou exalted most high! Oh my Father Satan! The eye."







      Christians had to worship in private and hide in the catacombs to avoid persecution.  They were hunted down.  Fanatics like to declare war on their enemies and slay them to prove their "truth".  Look at Muslim extremists. 






      Glamorous is hardly the world to describe Jesus' resurrection.  It is certainly not glamourous to follow Jesus.  He demands us to deny ourselves and follow Him.  THAT is hardly glamourous.







      Pagan gods didn't exactly die for our sins.  Why is Allah better than Jesus? He didn't come to earth and suffer what humans suffer and then suffer the ultimate like descending into hell?  I think you are may be aware that I mention that many Christians cannot think for themselves particularly those who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.




      When Jesus was crucified there wasn't that sufficient "fanfare".  Many people witnessed His resurrection for He remained on earth for a while after His resurrection and ascension.  People witnessed the miracles Paul and the apostles did after Jesus.  With this said, faith must never be taken out of the equation.  If I didn't actually know the spirit of God I would not bother being a Christian.  Why devote your life to some god that does nothing for us.   I am a rational person but I also know the spiritual realm which a lot of people don't deem rational but that is only because we are conditioned to believe it is fictitious. 






      So now you are suggesting that hundreds of years before Jesus, someone thought of a messiah story that would fit Jesus? I suppose someone also thought of Jesus with the prophecy of Him being born to a virgin.  If Isaiah didn't get it quite right, obviously due to His own interpretation due to a lack of understanding, then how could it have been manipulated? Surely manipulation would mean that the manipulator would write that His kingdom is not of this earth and not that He would be King of Israel which clearly did not happen.   Tell me which pagan god resembles that?





      A legend can only be formed over hundreds of years.  They don't spring up years after someone's demise. 

      You have to look at the practice of oral tradition back then:

      Quote from consulted website:

      "For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)

      If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,

      “The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” (4)

      Thus, as Birger Gerhardsson argues, “the milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus’ life and teaching were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” (5)"

      So the gospels, not the ones we have today in the Bible, must have been written down.

      People argue extended narratives could not have been possible in oral traditions.  They argue that it is not possible for people to remember Jesus' sermons and what He said in detail.

      "One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.” Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.” (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent”) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

      In the case of oral traditions, they were guided by form and freedom.  In other words, writers had to portray the events and the core as they were.  They could not alter events or make them up but they had flexibility in how they portrayed the gospels.  I think there were some supposed events, like the pigs being driven in the sea, that allowed for too much creative thinking and actually turned out to symbolic.

      Oral tradition was community based.  In other words, anything written about Jesus that wasn't true would be picked up in general.  In other words, things that would digress from the gist of the gospels would be thrown out.


      http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- … raditions/

      It's not like broken telephone, you know.




      Oh my goodness...if you believe that legends can be formed because one cannot understand what context is then you need to do some more research.  Who says that there was the same translator for Luke and Matthew? I don't think you paid any attention to my explanations.





      Who says that God can just simply eliminate Satan? They are both powerful beings.  It is only because of the conquering of death and sin that Satan has been defeated.  Now one may ask if Satan has been defeated why is he still here? That is because we are constrained by time.  Time is actually an illusion.  The present, past and future happen simultaneously at least that is according to Einstein.   If God just clicked His fingers and Satan went "poof" what was the purpose of Jesus to die for our sins? People think that Satan is just a weak being but he is a serious opponent to God.






      It is not only emotions that help us decide, but a conscience and reason, too.  You can't make a decision subconsciously.  That is out of your hands.  However, you make some interesting points. However, it was out of your free will that you picked up the fruit in the first place.   You appear to take all individuality out of everything.  To you  were are just like automated beings incapable of making decisions on our own.  It's like you think we are chameleons that just react to the environment without thinking.  The problem with your type of thinking is that you think we ought to be absolved from everything we do because we can't help it.  Wow. 




      Why should God decide anything when you say our decisions are a result of our environment and experience? He doesn't have a brain.



      Only God knows the extent of one's culpability.  Only He can judge.  I believe in death we will know the full consequences of sin even though we believed it was right on earth.  Then we get the chance to repent. 






      That is absolute nonsense.  God is love and to be the source of all love doesn't mean it is based on a decision.  Where do you think love, hate, etc, come from? From a primordial soup?







      Lol, and you know this as truth? You don't know my experiences.  I came across a story from a woman that I thought was absolutely crazy and creepy.  Logic told me she had to be lying or psychiatric wrong with her but I told myself, "How do you know this for a fact?" Therefore I remained in a position where I didn't believe or disbelieve her.  I couldn't dismiss her outright.






      So if a husband comes home in a roaring rage every evening and kicks the dog and beats the wife that is okay because it is beyond his control?  They can see the suffering that is caused.  They can get arrested.   What people often do is repeat this over and over again justifying that this is right by pushing out their conscience.   My dad is a psychopath and believes he does nothing wrong.  However, he has been caught out in lies and cannot explain how he was justified in doing so.  He was pushed out his conscience over the years by having spliffs constantly and addling his brain with alcohol.  It was HIS CHOICE to dull his conscience. 




      Context.

      Jesus knew that the rich man loved his wealth more than Jesus and one cannot inherit eternal life if one loves earthly things over Jesus.  Luke 10 says to love the Lord with all your heart.  That is the first commandment.


      Jesus does not mean that we must make ourselves poor by selling everything.  He knows we have daily means but we must put Him first above wealth.  One cannot love Jesus and wealth at the same time.

      It is absolutely nonsense that  no one can see the wrong they are doing.






      So all crime and evil is done out an urge to procreate and sin? I'm sorry, but how is torturing a dog and not feeling guilty the result of a need to breed and eat?  God judges us on things that we know is wrong and know it causes suffering.  He knows culpability.  He also knows some acts are based on our environment.  Not all as you suggest.  For example, it is deemed a sin to kill another human being but if we are in a crazed state from hunger and kill another to eat because hunger made us devoid of all reason, then God takes that into account. 






      As much as your argument is sound to some degree it does not mean that people cannot have the ability to know what is right and what is wrong.   I don't know how someone can justify the rape of a child.







      What I meant is imploding years after Jesus died.  It is because of Paul that Christianity spread.   As much as Christianity was spread further across the globe through sin, God can use good out of evil.  There are many Buddha stories and buddhas are considered designs.  They are based on historical figures.  Now Islam is also based on truth although Allah is not a good God but Satan.   Islam survived because of violence.  Christianity survived for hundreds of years without any violence or imposing Christianity on anyone.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Just elaborate a bit, please.
        Reply  The three gospels which are copies almost agree what jesus did during his minstry, but John is different (not entirely). What did jesus say in cross, “Why have you abandoned me” or “it is finished”? Who was there at the tomb? They all disagree. Was it Thursday or Friday jesus was taken? Genealogy?
        Claire Evans  wrote :   What absolute nonsense.  All the gospels acknowledge Him as the son of God.  So how did each gospel add a little extra that finally led to him being a "full blown" god by John?
        Reply  If a man who lived, crucified and died and resurrected was the whole story, then it only needed a sentence to say that. The fill-ins to make it a complete story, including nativity, child prodigy, ministry and after resurrection had to be added. They all agreed jesus was “son of man” and he died and resurrected, and that is the only common string. They do not say he is god( And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: Mark). These string developed over a century, from BC 100 to AD 100. In mark jeus was a man who got anointed after baptism, in mathew he couldn't perform miracles, while in john he was there from the beginning as the word.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Eye-witnesses were still alive at the time Christians were heavily persecuted.  Clearly a decent following had been established to be a threat to Nero who persecuted them in 64 AD.   You seem to have the impression that when eye-witnesses weren't around anymore that it meant the stories were redundant.  How, imagine if every historical figure was treated like that! You ask why would anyone doubt their God? Most atheists have been Christians before and obviously they "doubted" their god.  Don't just assume all Christians were gullible and brain-washed sheep completely void of any reasoning. 
        Reply  Christians were heavily persecuted? By whom? Romans were not at all bothered about the religion of anybody, Their only concern was political stability. Nero added tax to Jews, not Christians. Romans were not bothered whether what particular sects of jews believed or whether they are circumcised or not. There were no eyewitness for jesus. It started as a story, if jesus lived, he lived before first centuary. And people ready to die for some idea DOES NOT VALIDATE  the idea. It only proves that the those people has a strong conviction and fanatic belief in the correctness of the idea. The ismailis, the terrorists, suicidal groups and so many other groups were willing to die for their ideology, that does n’t make their ideology any special. If people diying is a criteria, Michael Jackson also is a god.
        Claire Evans  wrote :   “imagine if every historical figure was treated like that!’
        Reply  Did I say eyewitness alone? And every historical figure is treated the same to distinguish between myth and real figures. Alexander was treated like god by his followers, does that mean we too have to treat and consider him like a god?


        Claire Evans  wrote :   "CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
        hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

        "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

        As a historian, he did not write about hearsay.  As a historian he would have written, should he have believed that Jesus was a mere fictional god, "Christus, the god of the Christianity, is believed to have been put to death...."
        Reply  Except that the christians were not called christians at the time of nero, nor the Romans distinguished jews from christians.  And most scholars agree that it was a later christian extrapolation(forgery) as nobody noted that paragraph before Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century,who was a sworn liar for jesus.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   You appear to think that one charlatan was responsible for the whole of Christianity.  Yes, we can get a fortune teller who gets caught out in lies but for all the eye-witnesses to be charlatans orchestrating a grand conspiracy? It seems to be a stretch. 
        Reply  Not one, but several. They are no all charlatans, there were people who hoped for a messiah to save them. Hopes give rise to stories.
        Every English speaking might have heard of Sherlock homes and Doyle have modeled him on his professor, does that make it less fiction? And the deerstalker hat is not at all mentioned by Doyle but we cannot imagine him without it,  how?
        I'l tell u what a conspiracy is, every contemporary historian and the Romans failed to write about what the multitudes saw and the whole Israel condemned,.
        Pandira and end time prophesier,  ananus dooms dayer, the mulitile miracle workers and magicians like apillonius, asclepius...stada who was crucified, the sun god who daily died and resurrected ever morning gods like phoenix bird or the egyptian or indian gods, the stories of ot..it all coalesced to form the present Jesus.
        You appear to be very much interested in conspiracies? Most of the soothsayers, prophets… do not think they are charlatans, they believe in what they do. Many messiah like figures (rioters and leaders of revolt) were there in Israel and some were killed and they had followers. Did you check the keech story? The followers when found that their prophesy failed immediately invented reasons why it did and why they are still right. Similarly the followers who trusted the “messiahs” when found that the messiahs died had to make the dead messiahs a spiritual one, like the Isaiah prophesy- they died for our sins and they saved us from sin and not from earthly overlords. Then there were people who believed a god that dying and resurrecting(though however much you want to say there were no stories where gods died and resurrected, there were stories abound though not exactly in jesus format.) to save us. All these syncretized to form the present jesus story. It was people’s beliefs followed by the rituals that saved Christianity. 

        Claire Evans  wrote :   I'm talking about the early Christians not those who burnt books.
        Reply  Early christians wrote and later ones destroyed. We do not even have much greek writings available in the west because all was destroyed by Christians.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   You are going around in circles.  I have already answered this.   As I said, you are not objective.  If you were, you may turn into a person like CS Lewis.
        Reply  No you didn’t. You are simply telling me that jesus was not the exact copy any pagan god. But I didn’t claim so. What I said is the process of evolution is similar. Just like other people developed their gods, some jews and pagans developed theirs and called him jesus.
        A plagiarist, that is what Lewis is, not a intellectual

        Claire Evans  wrote :   The brain can we deemed as a modem to the soul.   If your modem of your computer is broken and your computer cannot access the Internet, it doesn't mean neither of them no longer exist.  The brain is part of our body that allows our soul to manifest in this dimension.   In another dimension, the soul is completely independent.   But, of course, we have Neath Death Experiences but that is a whole new topic.
        Reply  All experiences are from the brain. Soul is considered as the immaterial essence of humans, that is just a concept. The internet means a communication with other computer from which we can transfer data. There is no data that is transferred through soul, all the data we have is from our brain only. And any tiny aberration of the brain can bring subtle to gross personality changes. The personality may be entirely changed and if we coulfd transplan that brain to another body we will never recognise the person. By soul we mean the essence of the character of a person that distinguishes him from another.
        Claire Evans  wrote :   I'm sorry, but did you just miss part what Paul wrote that refuted what you just claimed?

        Galatians 4:4
        English Standard Version (ESV)
        4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

        This does not allude to a spiritual Jesus.  The gospels were firmly in place by the time Paul came onto the scene.  He agreed with the gospels.
        Reply  That is another extrapolation.  The gospels were still evolving when he came to the scene and it was he who gave it a proper form. All the people who wrote the gospels were Paul’s disciples. Paul didn’t knew anything about gospels in its present form. He didn’t knew whether jesus lived on earth, where he lived, what he said..... All his authority was his own, he never uttered a word as a quote from  jesus... He didn’t know Nazareth, golgotha.....In fact ther was no Nazerath as in the bible till theology built it.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   I would imagine it is because Jesus was just another common criminal and was not worthy of paying attention to.  It's not as if he was present at the place where Jesus was condemned and followed Him carrying His cross.  I don't think Pharisees took note of all Jewish criminals. 
        Reply  Common criminal? That is not what gospel says. The whole Jerusalem was out there to punish him. It is the all Jerusalem at the behest of priests and pharisees that asked for barabbas release and jesus’s death and yet the fanatic Paul missed him. And he never bothered to check whether jesus lived? He never got a jesus of Nazareth, quotes from jesus, and this fellow was a contemporary of jesus,em!
        And according to history Pilate was a cruel, ruthless greedy man and not the pliable one portrayed in bible.



        Claire Evans  wrote :   No, He received a revelation from Jesus on the road to Damascus through a vision.  It does not mean he made it up because he didn't meet Jesus while He was alive.
        Reply  It means he made it up because he never studied anything from the supposed eyewitnesses and even debated with peter who was supposed to live with jesus. Also he condemned all others who got divine inspiration other than he.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   You are giving me the impression that you believed early Christians were like David Koresh followers.  Irrational and gullible and completely void of any reason.   People grow up to believe in Allah, etc, but the early Christians did not grow up to follow a failed messiah.  They expected a messiah that would rule Israel. 
        Reply  Before people could grew up in Allah some people had to convert their parents. How did they got converted? How did the mormons converted? How did david Koresh’s followers converted. It is the same for christians too. Yes some might have been idiots, but there following generation may not be so, but was already became christians by their birth. What you are saying is Christians were intelligent to convert while all others are idiots to do the same.
        [As Arnold and Slack demonstrated even the sophisticated can be fooled if the cards are played right]

        Claire Evans  wrote :   If Jesus is a human, how did his death benefit us?

        Jesus conquered death because it proved that those who love Him have eternal life as they are resurrected from the dead in a glorified body.  Jesus proved that the forgiveness of sins means that death has been conquered. 
        Reply  That is merely your opinion that is not substantiated nor logical. How does a god living eternally  means they  too will be resurrected? What is 1 and ½ days for an eternal god. If god say you will not die, does he got to prove by dying himself? How does death give forgiveness of sin? In fact what do YOU mean by “death”?
        Claire Evans  wrote :   Death for Him meant the death of anyone who has flesh.  His earthly body died.  It is in death that sin leads us to hell.  When He died, He descended into hell because He took on all the sin of the world.  God cannot be anywhere near sin so Jesus was in hell because hell is the complete separation from God.   However, Jesus proved that we can have life if we are cleansed of our sins.   It is because Jesus took on our sin and went to hell on our behalf that we don't have to have that fate if we truly repent.   
        Reply  How did you know jesus descended into hell? Is “sin” something like a fruit for anybody to carry. ‘Sin’ or ‘wrong’(as decided by society) may be punished or forgiven.  To forgive one can simply forgive without any theatrics. 

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Jesus alone was enough to establish Christianity way before the Catholic Church started.   It is despite the Catholic Church Christianity survived for they have corrupted Christianity. 
        Reply Unfortunately there was no single person let alone single Jesus behind the present Jesus story. It was because of church the story got followers and survived and you got it. If it wasn’t for the church and its adaptations, it would have been just another Gnostic sect, people believing in spiritual messiah who died and resurrected. So many christian sects were there and one group simply got ascendancy by their fanaticism and acceptance of rituals and stories that appealed to pagans. Your christianity is a unique version of yours with no reference to the most known sects.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Divine knowledge is knowledge that can teach one to become Christ, another divine god. People who strive for this believe a new consciousness will awaken the third eye and they can become a god.
        Do you really believe Satanist Aleister Crowley would introduce the Gnostic mass?

        This is what he said: "Satan! Cry Aloud! Thou exalted most high! Oh my Father Satan! The eye."
        Reply  If there is only one god, no amount of knowledge can make one a god or messiah, that is stupidity. And it was not crowly that started gnostism.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Christians had to worship in private and hide in the catacombs to avoid persecution.  They were hunted down.  Fanatics like to declare war on their enemies and slay them to prove their "truth".  Look at Muslim extremists. 
        Reply   The persecutions are mostly pious fictions. And more christians were  killed by christiants than all the pagans combined.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Glamorous is hardly the world to describe Jesus' resurrection.  It is certainly not glamorous to follow Jesus.  He demands us to deny ourselves and follow Him.  THAT is hardly glamourous.
        Reply  If that is the case it is least glamorous to follow allah. A resurrected god that conquered death and went to hell to conquer sin and take you to heaven and give you eternal happiness, is not glamorous??

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Pagan gods didn't exactly die for our sins.  Why is Allah better than Jesus? He didn't come to earth and suffer what humans suffer and then suffer the ultimate like descending into hell?  I think you are may be aware that I mention that many Christians cannot think for themselves particularly those who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.
        Reply   People do not have to die for sins unless you want to eliminate them to prevent future crimes. So a mythical god dying is no different from a mythical god killing. God CANNOT die, that will make the word meaningless.  Suffering is either physical or mental. Which pain did jesus suffer? Physical suffering is again relative. The same pain may be intolerable to some and a minor nuisance to some other. And if I am a magical being, what will I do when I get pain?
        How does god suffer? Do you know there are people who cannot experience pain? There people who has no emotions or cannot feel it? All these do to simple brain wiring problem. So god has a brain?


        Claire Evans  wrote :   When Jesus was crucified there wasn't that sufficient "fanfare".  Many people witnessed His resurrection for He remained on earth for a while after His resurrection and ascension.  People witnessed the miracles Paul and the apostles did after Jesus.  With this said, faith must never be taken out of the equation.  If I didn't actually know the spirit of God I would not bother being a Christian.  Why devote your life to some god that does nothing for us.   I am a rational person but I also know the spiritual realm which a lot of people don't deem rational but that is only because we are conditioned to believe it is fictitious. 
        Reply   Nobody witnessed the resurrection. It was a mere story to make jesus glamorous. The miracles are just like the miracles done by earlier or later people, exaggerated stories. They made up the stories just like they mentioned things which they cannot know like jesus transformation, pilate’s wife’s dream.... A story totally made up.
        Believe as fictitious? No irrational has inherent contradictions, that is, it does not occur in reality. It seems real because of the vague and nebulous use of language.
        Claire Evans  wrote :   “If I didn't actually know the spirit of God I would not bother being a Christian.  “
        Reply   That is called confirmation bias. We first believe something, then explain everything based on the belief – deletion, distortion and generalization. Everybody does that. And if anybody can calim that they are lead by spirit, as you said, the rapist was lead by spirit when he raped, he is not guilty.


        Claire Evans  wrote :   So now you are suggesting that hundreds of years before Jesus, someone thought of a messiah story that would fit Jesus? I suppose someone also thought of Jesus with the prophecy of Him being born to a virgin.  If Isaiah didn't get it quite right, obviously due to His own interpretation due to a lack of understanding, then how could it have been manipulated? Surely manipulation would mean that the manipulator would write that His kingdom is not of this earth and not that He would be King of Israel which clearly did not happen.   Tell me which pagan god resembles that?
        Reply  Hundreds of years before? Nobody knows what all things got into this disjoined work and when. This might have got into the text around 100BC. Jesus himself didn’t get his death prophesy rightly, so Isaiah got it right?
        And this is how one manipulates “Context.

        Jesus knew that the rich man loved his wealth more than Jesus and one cannot inherit eternal life if one loves earthly things over Jesus.  Luke 10 says to love the Lord with all your heart.  That is the first commandment.”
        The Messiah stories were there started earlier. So when a story is there it is easy to copy, isn’t it?
        Born of virgin? Born of a women and the prophesy was directed to Ahaz. You extrapolating it later to fit your god man will not make it a prophesy. And Isaiah didn’t get it correct? It was he who was supposed to write this prophesy? But who is isaiah? Not one person, but just a collection of different stories over centuries. A later day story, a story at the beginning time of jesus got into isaiah so?
        Did I say it resembled god? Cyrus was Persian king.
        “Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears,”
        No, not mark but Jewish wars of josephus, but look like Isaiah prophesy..
        If Isaiah has prophesied” A man will arise, who will be betrayed by his own disciple and will be brought to roman procurator who will crucify him”, then that might have been a prophesy. A vague prophesy that can be made to fit anything....especially in the hands of liars,  then Nostradamus is the greates prophet!


        Claire Evans  wrote :   A legend can only be formed over hundreds of years.  They don't spring up years after someone's demise. 

        You have to look at the practice of oral tradition back then:
        Reply  You are quoting the same apologetic text again and again. If a written book can be manipulated, then oral tradition is easily manipulated. And new stories get along as it is circulated.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   Oh my goodness...if you believe that legends can be formed because one cannot understand what context is then you need to do some more research.  Who says that there was the same translator for Luke and Matthew? I don't think you paid any attention to my explanations.
        Reply   Are you incapable of understanding or are you not reading. I said two different things.
        1)    There are misquotes, mistranslated and later additions in the gospels and I gave ‘hate’ as just one example. Another is the virgin, there are so many that I won’t be able to list all here.
        2)    You says the translator made a mistake while quoting Luke and not mathew. If it was a translation mistake how did 20 different people and 6 languages made the same mistake regarding Luke while not a single one made a mistake in Mathew. Conspiracy?
        Claire Evans  wrote :   Who says that God can just simply eliminate Satan? They are both powerful beings.  It is only because of the conquering of death and sin that Satan has been defeated.  Now one may ask if Satan has been defeated why is he still here? That is because we are constrained by time.  Time is actually an illusion.  The present, past and future happen simultaneously at least that is according to Einstein.   If God just clicked His fingers and Satan went "poof" what was the purpose of Jesus to die for our sins? People think that Satan is just a weak being but he is a serious opponent to God.
        Reply   Again nonsense. How does conquering death and sin defeat satan. So satan was created for jesus to die? So god is not omnipotent?
        And why are they fighting?  Men fight for resources and females, same? Or are they fighting over  whether communism or capitalism is good? Fight is to gather resources and females, two omnipotent need not fight.
        I debated this very much whether to tell you or not. You should see a psychotherapist. Your(everybodys) first world is your family(microcosm) which you later extrapolate to the real(macrocosm) world. Your parents are your initial gods. Now from what you are saying, I think you are seeing your father as satan and whoever helped you, may be your mother as god. That is, you are extrapolating them and the god  and satan are representing them. (PS: I am not sure whether I am using the correct words, so sorry if I’m offending you). There is no satan, only god.


        Claire Evans  wrote :   God is love and to be the source of all love doesn't mean it is based on a decision.
        Reply   Love is an emotion. All emotions are property of brain. As you said god has no brain, he has no love as well. If you say god is love, that means god is the property of brain.
        To love, is a decision either conscious or unconscious. Have you seen a person for the first time and talked to him/her and liked or hated him? You may not have made a conscious decision, but your mind made that decision. To make that decision, it has to depend on the brain state and your memory(experience).
        Reason will not help you in making a decision. In real world, reason give choices. It is emotions that determine the importance of each choice. A man who’s emotional part of brain is disjointed from the rest cannot make decision(There are persons like that) and he will lose his life as we call it.
        Regarding judgement?  Do we punish a psychotic for  doing crime? We condition people based on teaching and experience. We have to punish them, if not the conditioning will not work and the society will collapse.
        Rage is a sudden burst of anger that freeze the brain. A man in rage will not drive from office to home to beat his wife, that is anger. Second if a man is repeatedly having rage and the women decided to live with him, whose fault it is. If I make a house on top of a volcano, and an eruption destroyed my house, who’s fault it is?
        Claire Evans  wrote : You don't know my experiences.  I came across a story from a woman that I thought was absolutely crazy and creepy.
        Reply   The bad experiences may be the reason why you tenaciously hold on to god(as you say it) and satan against all reason. Experience conditioning is more strong than ‘learning by word’ conditioning.
        Claire Evans  wrote : Why should God decide anything when you say our decisions are a result of our environment and experience? He doesn't have a brain.
        Reply   We make decision because we are animals that survive in a society and in a world. God is not an organism to make decisions. For god everything is same whether it is  cockroach or a rat, tiger or a deer, a human or a orange.  Does  god need a stomasch, or nose or legs or a tongue?
        Claire Evans  wrote : So all crime and evil is done out an urge to procreate and sin? I'm sorry, but how is torturing a dog and not feeling guilty the result of a need to breed and eat?
        Reply   Not procreate and sin, but procreate and eat. Sin is a societal construct. It is developed for the society. Torturing a dog? Do you see people torturing dogs everyday? Do you see psychotics everyday? Aberrations occur either because of brain defects or negative conditioning or both.
        Have you done nothing of which you were embarrassed later? Have you done nothing ’at the spur of the moment’? Most of the other times we are aware of the choices and that is what give rise to illusion of free will. But our every decision is based on emotions which are experience couple with anatomy which we are unaware. We are the product of our brain structure and circumstances. But when I say that you do not hear both, you choose only one at a time.
        Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus knew that the rich man loved his wealth more than Jesus and one cannot inherit eternal life if one loves earthly things over Jesus.
        Reply These is your version and your rationalization not to sell your belongings. You know that the early christians sold everything they had. It is described in the Acts. Similarly everybody rationalise and manipulate to fit their “normal state”.

        Claire Evans  wrote :   What I meant is imploding years after Jesus died.  It is because of Paul that Christianity spread.   As much as Christianity was spread further across the globe through sin, God can use good out of evil.  There are many Buddha stories and buddhas are considered designs.  They are based on historical figures.  Now Islam is also based on truth although Allah is not a good God but Satan.   Islam survived because of violence.  Christianity survived for hundreds of years without any violence or imposing Christianity on anyone.
        Reply  Why should it implode? Just like islam, christianity too survived through violence. Buddhist didn’t do violence, but still survives. Once a great number of people are involved it take real education to remove it out of the society and that is why the number of christians are decreasing in Europe while islam is still increasing.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Claire Evans  wrote : How do the gospels digress from the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus?

          riddle666  The three gospels which are copies almost agree what jesus did during his minstry, but John is different (not entirely). What did jesus say in cross, “Why have you abandoned me” or “it is finished”? Who was there at the tomb? They all disagree. Was it Thursday or Friday jesus was taken? Genealogy?

          Claire :How does John digress significantly from the other gospel?  Jesus probably asked why God abandoned Him and said "It is finished." Why can't He have said both?"  And at the point of death He gave up His spirit (Matthew 27:50) which one can reasonably conclude Jesus said, ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

          Luke 23:46 

          Well, I think you can assume the gospels are not just mere copies if there are discrepancies in the empty tomb story.    However, the gist of the story is the same and that is why it doesn't concern historians and scholars. 

          Atheist historian, Michael Grant, writes:

          “True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty.”

          In his book "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels",he writes:

          "This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

          And some seeming contradictions can actually be reconciled:

          For example, the accounts vary in the reported time of the visit to the tomb. One writer describes it as “still dark” (John 20:1), another says it was “very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1), and another says it was “just after sunrise” (Mark 16:2). But if the visit was “at dawn,” (Matthew 28:1), they were likely describing the same thing with different words.

          As for the number of women, none of them gospels claim that it was a complete list.   They all claim Mary Magdalene was there because she obviously was none to the disciples.  The other women were not as important as she to the writers. 

          As for the the number of angels, it is not necessarily a contradiction that Matthew reports one and John two.  The Gospel of Matthew doesn't say there was just one angel. It just says that one angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified."

          As for when Jesus was arrested, Jewish time was actually different to Roman time.

          The Jewish "day" starts at sunset, the exact timing of which changes slightly depending upon the season. Therefore, their day is getting dark when it begins. A Roman "day," however, started at midnight (as does most of the western world today). So when their day began it would be dark and would soon be getting light--just the opposite of the Jewish day.

          "During the time of Christ the Israelites adopted the Roman practice of counting 4 "watches" during the night. These watches began at approximately 9:30 PM, 12:00 midnight, 2:30 AM (called the cockcrow watch), and 5 AM. From sunrise they divided the day in sections into what they termed "hours"(1). Thus when they said that something happened at the 6th hour it was about noon or 6 hours after sunrise, not 6 AM like we would reckon time in the West. "

          http://www.loriswebs.com/lorispoetry/crucifix.html

          Jewish "Hours" starts at Sunrise and Roman Day starts at Midnight.  And so I suspect this is where the confusion comes in.

          I'm not clued up about the genealogy.  You need to elaborate on that.



          Claire Evans  wrote :   What absolute nonsense.  All the gospels acknowledge Him as the son of God.  So how did each gospel add a little extra that finally led to him being a "full blown" god by John?

          riddle666  If a man who lived, crucified and died and resurrected was the whole story, then it only needed a sentence to say that. The fill-ins to make it a complete story, including nativity, child prodigy, ministry and after resurrection had to be added. They all agreed jesus was “son of man” and he died and resurrected, and that is the only common string. They do not say he is god( And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: Mark). .

          Claire:  Jesus often posed questions to make people think in a certain way.  He was very much like a "Devil's advocate", excuse the irony but I'm sure you know what I mean. 

          Jesus is asking why the man calls Him good. Is it because Jesus keeps the commandments or is it because goodness is a by product of God? There's a difference between good in society's standards and good according to God's standards.

          I will post a commentary on this:

          "Jesus’ fundamental lesson here is that goodness flows not from a man’s deeds, but rather from God Himself. Jesus invites the man to follow Him, the only means of doing good by God’s ultimate standard. Jesus describes to the young ruler what it means to follow Him—to be willing to give up everything, thus putting God first. When one considers that Jesus is drawing a distinction between man’s standard of goodness and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good. The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to adopt, Jesus is good. And it necessarily follows that if Jesus is indeed good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His deity.

          Thus, Jesus’ question to the man is designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity. Such an interpretation is substantiated by passages such as John 10:11 wherein Jesus declares Himself to be “the good shepherd.” Similarly in John 8:46, Jesus asks, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” Of course the answer is "no." Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

          The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
          1: Jesus claims only God is good.
          2: Jesus claims to be good.
          3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God."

          http://www.gotquestions.org/good-God-alone.html

          riddle666These string developed over a century, from BC 100 to AD 100

          Claire:  I have no idea what you are talking about.

          riddle666In mark jeus was a man who got anointed after baptism, in mathew he couldn't perform miracles, while in john he was there from the beginning as the word.

          Claire:Jesus as a man was anointed after baptism which represented the beginning of His ministry.   Jesus being one with God in the form of the Holy Spirit existed from the being.  His body only came into existence when He was born in the flesh. 

          Claire Evans  wrote : Eye-witnesses were still alive at the time Christians were heavily persecuted.  Clearly a decent following had been established to be a threat to Nero who persecuted them in 64 AD.   You seem to have the impression that when eye-witnesses weren't around anymore that it meant the stories were redundant.  How, imagine if every historical figure was treated like that! You ask why would anyone doubt their God? Most atheists have been Christians before and obviously they "doubted" their god.  Don't just assume all Christians were gullible and brain-washed sheep completely void of any reasoning. 

          riddle666  Christians were heavily persecuted? By whom? Romans were not at all bothered about the religion of anybody, Their only concern was political stability. Nero added tax to Jews, not Christians. Romans were not bothered whether what particular sects of jews believed or whether they are circumcised or not. There were no eyewitness for jesus. It started as a story, if jesus lived, he lived before first centuary. And people ready to die for some idea DOES NOT VALIDATE  the idea. It only proves that the those people has a strong conviction and fanatic belief in the correctness of the idea. The ismailis, the terrorists, suicidal groups and so many other groups were willing to die for their ideology, that does n’t make their ideology any special. If people diying is a criteria, Michael Jackson also is a god.

          Claire: Heard of Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 AD? Peter was killed under Nero.  It's a bit of a stretch that no eye-witnesses were alive then.  The Romans saw Christians as a threat to their political security and accused Christians in believing superstitions.  Tacitus viewed it as a "deadly superstition".   It was deemed a threat to Roman traditions.   Pagans believed if the old gods were neglected, they'd be punished.  That's hardly being tolerable to Christian beliefs.

          According to the Roman historian Tacitus:


          "Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even toward men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual."

          Say during the time of Nero, what Christian tried to force Christianity on the pagans? They worshiped in private and in hiding to avoid persecution?

          http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani … tion.htm#4


          Claire Evans  wrote :   “imagine if every historical figure was treated like that!’

          riddle666  Did I say eyewitness alone? And every historical figure is treated the same to distinguish between myth and real figures. Alexander was treated like god by his followers, does that mean we too have to treat and consider him like a god?

          Claire: No, you don't have to treat him like a god but it doesn't mean his stories are all lies.    I'm glad you know that myths are distinguished from real figures.  That's why serious historians and scholars say Jesus did exist.   


          Claire Evans  wrote :   "CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

          "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

          As a historian, he did not write about hearsay.  As a historian he would have written, should he have believed that Jesus was a mere fictional god, "Christus, the god of the Christianity, is believed to have been put to death...."

          Reply  Except that the christians were not called christians at the time of nero, nor the Romans distinguished jews from christians.  And most scholars agree that it was a later christian extrapolation(forgery) as nobody noted that paragraph before Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century,who was a sworn liar for jesus.

          Claire : The name Christian existed during the time of Paul.  Look at Acts 11:26:

          "...and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7508892.png

          Detail of the 11th century copy of Annals, the gap between the 'i' and 's' is highlighted in the word 'Christianos'.

          So Tacitus originally wrote that.

          The the passage of Tacitus was forged? So Christians are going to call their religion pernicious superstition? If a Christian was to forge something, they'd refer to their religion in a glowing light.  Tacitus calls Christianity the first source of evil.

          http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … apter%3D44

          The onus on you is to prove that Sulpicius forged that Tacitus passage.  I'd like to hear you proof on that.  You can't just say it.  You say that no one noticed that passage before Sulpicius.  He may have had that lost portion of Tacitus' annals. The surviving Annals break off in break off in Book sixteen, the same book with the passage that was allegedly forged in 66 AD.  The Annals resume in the early 70s.   Sulpicious always wrote according to a source he had in his possession.  For example:

          "Titus is said, after calling a council, to have first deliberated whether he should destroy the temple, a structure of such extraordinary work. For it seemed good to some that a sacred edifice, distinguished above all human achievements, ought not to be destroyed, inasmuch as, if preserved, it would furnish an evidence of Roman moderation, but, if destroyed, would serve for a perpetual proof of Roman cruelty. But on the opposite side, others and Titus himself thought that the temple ought specially to be overthrown, in order that the religion of the Jews and of the Christians might more thoroughly be subverted; for that these religions, although contrary to each other, had nevertheless proceeded from the same authors; that the Christians had sprung up from among the Jews; and that, if the root were extirpated, the offshoot would speedily perish."

          He said, "Titus is said..." That indicates he is reporting an event according to someone else.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   You appear to think that one charlatan was responsible for the whole of Christianity.  Yes, we can get a fortune teller who gets caught out in lies but for all the eye-witnesses to be charlatans orchestrating a grand conspiracy? It seems to be a stretch. 

          riddle666  Not one, but several. They are no all charlatans, there were people who hoped for a messiah to save them. Hopes give rise to stories.

          Claire: So you seem to think that several charlatans spread rumours and that is how Christianity started? Please prove that.



          riddle666I'l tell u what a conspiracy is, every contemporary historian and the Romans failed to write about what the multitudes saw and the whole Israel condemned.

          Claire:  Please clarify.


          riddle666  and end time prophesier,  ananus dooms dayer, the mulitile miracle workers and magicians like apillonius, asclepius...stada who was crucified, the sun god who daily died and resurrected ever morning gods like phoenix bird or the egyptian or indian gods, the stories of ot..it all coalesced to form the present Jesus.

          Claire:  Prove that.  When it comes to Apollonius, he was written about 150 years after Jesus.  Therefore, who copied whom? Philostratus was the only one to write about him unlike the gospel writers.    Philostratus was born around 127 AD.  He hardly consulted eye witnesses.  Considering that he was PAID to write his work by Julia Domna, the mother of the emperor Caracalla, who had donated funds to build a temple dedicated to Apollonius it hardly surprises me that he wrote rubbish like this:

          Reporting Apollonius' birth, Philostratus says that Apollonius' mother had fallen asleep in a meadow, where the swans who lived in the meadow danced around her, then cried aloud, causing her to give birth prematurely. [Ph.LAT, 13]

          Apollonius specifically condemns the practice of taking hot baths. (ibid., 47)

          Apollonius professes to be able to speak all human languages - without ever having learned them. (ibid., 53)

          He also learns to speak the language of birds. (ibid., 57)

          He professes to have seen the chains of Prometheus while traveling in the Caucasus mountains. [Mead.ApT, 60]

          He and his party encounter a hobgoblin, which they chase away by calling it names. [Ph.LAT., 125]

          Apollonius states that captive elephants cry and mourn at night when men are not watching; but when men come around, they stop crying because they are ashamed. (ibid., 145 - this comes as part of a very long section devoted to elephants, which was taken from Juba's History of Libya - Mead.ApT, 60n)

          A short paragraph by Philostratus describes different types of dragons. (ibid., 245-7)

          Apollonius confronts a satyr and puts it to sleep by offering it wine. (ibid., v. 2, 107-9)

          During his trial, Apollonius causes the writing to disappear from the tablets of one of his accusers. [Mead.ApT, 188]

          Sounds pagan? Julia was pagan so it is not surprising.

          What are you talking about when you say Stada was crucified and rose again? That is absolute nonsense.  He was stoned and condemned by the Jewish courts. 

          riddle666You appear to be very much interested in conspiracies? Most of the soothsayers, prophets… do not think they are charlatans, they believe in what they do. Many messiah like figures (rioters and leaders of revolt) were there in Israel and some were killed and they had followers. Did you check the keech story? The followers when found that their prophesy failed immediately invented reasons why it did and why they are still right. Similarly the followers who trusted the “messiahs” when found that the messiahs died had to make the dead messiahs a spiritual one, like the Isaiah prophesy- they died for our sins and they saved us from sin and not from earthly overlords. Then there were people who believed a god that dying and resurrecting(though however much you want to say there were no stories where gods died and resurrected, there were stories abound though not exactly in jesus format.) to save us. All these syncretized to form the present jesus story. It was people’s beliefs followed by the rituals that saved Christianity. 

          Claire: I love the way you say this as if this is a fact.  Prove that Christianity was started by charlatans.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   I'm talking about the early Christians not those who burnt books.

          riddle666  Early christians wrote and later ones destroyed. We do not even have much greek writings available in the west because all was destroyed by Christians.

          When did Christians start destroying books?


          Claire Evans  wrote :   You are going around in circles.  I have already answered this.   As I said, you are not objective.  If you were, you may turn into a person like CS Lewis.

          riddle666  No you didn’t. You are simply telling me that jesus was not the exact copy any pagan god. But I didn’t claim so. What I said is the process of evolution is similar. Just like other people developed their gods, some jews and pagans developed theirs and called him jesus.
          A plagiarist, that is what Lewis is, not a intellectual

          Claire:  Pagans started the Jesus story? Wow, they had a myriad of gods to choose from and they decide to create another one?  Prove that CS Lewis was a plagiarist.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   The brain can we deemed as a modem to the soul.   If your modem of your computer is broken and your computer cannot access the Internet, it doesn't mean neither of them no longer exist.  The brain is part of our body that allows our soul to manifest in this dimension.   In another dimension, the soul is completely independent.   But, of course, we have Neath Death Experiences but that is a whole new topic.

          riddle666  All experiences are from the brain. Soul is considered as the immaterial essence of humans, that is just a concept. The internet means a communication with other computer from which we can transfer data. There is no data that is transferred through soul, all the data we have is from our brain only. And any tiny aberration of the brain can bring subtle to gross personality changes. The personality may be entirely changed and if we coulfd transplan that brain to another body we will never recognise the person. By soul we mean the essence of the character of a person that distinguishes him from another.

          Claire:  You may want to rethink about data being the product of the brain only.   Studies show that words and frequencies can actually change our DNA.    DNA stores data.  Read more here:

          http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 … 45642.html

          A personality change because of brain injury does not prove that the soul does not exist. 

          Claire Evans  wrote :   I'm sorry, but did you just miss part what Paul wrote that refuted what you just claimed?

          Galatians 4:4
          English Standard Version (ESV)
          4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

          This does not allude to a spiritual Jesus.  The gospels were firmly in place by the time Paul came onto the scene.  He agreed with the gospels.

          riddle666  That is another extrapolation.  The gospels were still evolving when he came to the scene and it was he who gave it a proper form. All the people who wrote the gospels were Paul’s disciples. Paul didn’t knew anything about gospels in its present form. He didn’t knew whether jesus lived on earth, where he lived, what he said..... All his authority was his own, he never uttered a word as a quote from  jesus... He didn’t know Nazareth, golgotha.....In fact ther was no Nazerath as in the bible till theology built it.

          Claire:  You are talking absolute nonsense.  What proof do you have that the gospels were still evolving by the time Paul came onto the scene? The present form is that God sent His son and was born of a woman and that is what Paul wrote about.  He was a friend of Peter, a disciple, and that is how he knew.   Regarding the rest of your comment, it is irrelevant.  We are discussing whether Paul believed in a physical Jesus or not and I refuted your claim that he only believed in a spiritual one.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   I would imagine it is because Jesus was just another common criminal and was not worthy of paying attention to.  It's not as if he was present at the place where Jesus was condemned and followed Him carrying His cross.  I don't think Pharisees took note of all Jewish criminals. 

          riddle666  Common criminal? That is not what gospel says. The whole Jerusalem was out there to punish him. It is the all Jerusalem at the behest of priests and pharisees that asked for barabbas release and jesus’s death and yet the fanatic Paul missed him. And he never bothered to check whether jesus lived? He never got a jesus of Nazareth, quotes from jesus, and this fellow was a contemporary of jesus,em!

          And according to history Pilate was a cruel, ruthless greedy man and not the pliable one portrayed in bible.

          Claire:  No, the whole of Jerusalem was not out there to punish Him.  It was the Pharisees that brought Him to the Romans, not the whole of Jerusalem.  Once Pontius Pilate gave Jesus to the priests to be crucified, the crucifixion happened and then life returned to normal.   Jesus' crucifixion did not overthrow the Roman empire.  Therefore, non Jewish historians only starting writing about Jesus when Christianity started gaining power. 

          Yes, Pilate was a cruel and greedy man but who is not to say that the holiness of Jesus made Him change on the spot?

          However, Pilate was between a rock and a hard place.   He was afraid if he allowed Jesus to die, His followers would rebel and Caesar would have done away with him.  If he didn't allow Jesus to die, the Jews who wanted Him dead would have rebelled.     So not wanting Jesus to die didn't necessarily mean that he felt sorry for Him.   Pontius Pilate was no different to the leaders we have today.   If there is an uprising, he would not hesitate to order that brute force be used against violent protestors.  Do you think Obama cared when looters were killed on the spot by the police after Hurricane Katrina?

          It's most likely my above explanation is more likely than Him being influenced by the holiness of Jesus.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   No, He received a revelation from Jesus on the road to Damascus through a vision.  It does not mean he made it up because he didn't meet Jesus while He was alive.

          riddle666  It means he made it up because he never studied anything from the supposed eyewitnesses and even debated with peter who was supposed to live with jesus. Also he condemned all others who got divine inspiration other than he.

          Claire:  What did Paul debate with Peter about?



          Claire Evans  wrote :   You are giving me the impression that you believed early Christians were like David Koresh followers.  Irrational and gullible and completely void of any reason.   People grow up to believe in Allah, etc, but the early Christians did not grow up to follow a failed messiah.  They expected a messiah that would rule Israel. 

          riddle666  Before people could grew up in Allah some people had to convert their parents. How did they got converted? How did the mormons converted? How did david Koresh’s followers converted. It is the same for christians too. Yes some might have been idiots, but there following generation may not be so, but was already became christians by their birth. What you are saying is Christians were intelligent to convert while all others are idiots to do the same.
          [As Arnold and Slack demonstrated even the sophisticated can be fooled if the cards are played right]

          Claire: You need to answer why would the Jews want to follow a failed messiah when they were perfectly happy with Judaism?

          Claire Evans  wrote :   If Jesus is a human, how did his death benefit us?

          Claire:  Jesus conquered death because it proved that those who love Him have eternal life as they are resurrected from the dead in a glorified body.  Jesus proved that the forgiveness of sins means that death has been conquered. 

          riddle666  That is merely your opinion that is not substantiated nor logical. How does a god living eternally  means they  too will be resurrected? What is 1 and ½ days for an eternal god. If god say you will not die, does he got to prove by dying himself? How does death give forgiveness of sin? In fact what do YOU mean by “death”?

          Claire:  Lol, I love the way you said it is merely my opinion.  Most of your comments are unsubstantiated and and just your opinion.  As I've mentioned, Jesus and God will separate on earth.  Jesus was in the flesh, God was not even though they are the same being.  It was in flesh they were separated.   Jesus' resurrected proved to us that death has been conquered and sin.  God Himself as a spirit could not die but we know the flesh dies and that is what happens to Jesus.  With the forgiveness of sins, as He was forgiven by God, He showed us that we, too, can have a glorified body and we reunited with God.   Who knows what would have become of God should death have conquered Jesus.  He'd go to hell but what about Him? Would He have gone their too or go into oblivion? That I'm not sure.  That is the mystery of faith.

          Jesus had to die in order to take on all the sin of the world and descend into hell.   It would be the same fate as us.  If we die and have unforgiven sin, we, too, will descend into hell.  Jesus' resurrection proved that the forgiveness of sin provides eternal life.  How could Jesus prove ever lasting life if He never taste death?  What I mean by death is the demise of the physical body and hell.  Death represents all that is lost and eternal life represents hope and triumph.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   Death for Him meant the death of anyone who has flesh.  His earthly body died.  It is in death that sin leads us to hell.  When He died, He descended into hell because He took on all the sin of the world.  God cannot be anywhere near sin so Jesus was in hell because hell is the complete separation from God.   However, Jesus proved that we can have life if we are cleansed of our sins.   It is because Jesus took on our sin and went to hell on our behalf that we don't have to have that fate if we truly repent. 

          riddle666  How did you know jesus descended into hell? Is “sin” something like a fruit for anybody to carry. ‘Sin’ or ‘wrong’(as decided by society) may be punished or forgiven.  To forgive one can simply forgive without any theatrics. 

          Claire : God cannot be anywhere near sin.   Can sin exist in the kingdom of God? No.  So Jesus being full of sin meant He was completely separated from God.  That is why Jesus asked why God had forsaken Him.  The complete separation from God is hell.   Where God is void, Satan is present.  You know what it takes on the part of a sinner to truly repent? It's not a case of, "I'm sorry", to avoid punishment.  It's an agonizing spiritual process realizing all the harmful things one has done provided they have any good in them.   God cannot forgive those who love sin and won't repent.   Jesus dying and rising from the dead proved that even the most heinous sin can be forgiven with true repentance between Jesus took on the responsibility of the most sins imaginable.  If God could not forgive that, Jesus would have remained in hell and that would have been the destiny of all of us.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   Jesus alone was enough to establish Christianity way before the Catholic Church started.   It is despite the Catholic Church Christianity survived for they have corrupted Christianity. 

          riddle666 Unfortunately there was no single person let alone single Jesus behind the present Jesus story. It was because of church the story got followers and survived and you got it. If it wasn’t for the church and its adaptations, it would have been just another Gnostic sect, people believing in spiritual messiah who died and resurrected. So many christian sects were there and one group simply got ascendancy by their fanaticism and acceptance of rituals and stories that appealed to pagans. Your christianity is a unique version of yours with no reference to the most known sects.

          Claire:  What are you talking about? Are you telling me that no man called Jesus existed? Are you telling me that Paul invented Peter? Christianity existed before an established church.  You need to prove that this happened.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   Divine knowledge is knowledge that can teach one to become Christ, another divine god. People who strive for this believe a new consciousness will awaken the third eye and they can become a god.
          Do you really believe Satanist Aleister Crowley would introduce the Gnostic mass?

          This is what he said: "Satan! Cry Aloud! Thou exalted most high! Oh my Father Satan! The eye."

          riddle666  If there is only one god, no amount of knowledge can make one a god or messiah, that is stupidity. And it was not crowly that started gnostism.

          Claire:  No, they believe they were share God's consciousness and actually be part of Him.  They believe they will be omniscient like Him.  There definition of God is different though.  New Agers believe that God is the higher consciousness that makes on omniscient, etc.  They believe they can take on these characteristics.  Therefore, they don't believe in God the way Christians do.  I know Crowley didn't start Gnosticism but it is Satanism.  It has the same roots.  It's just a different name.

          Claire Evans  wrote :   Christians had to worship in private and hide in the catacombs to avoid persecution.  They were hunted down.  Fanatics like to declare war on their enemies and slay them to prove their "truth".  Look at Muslim extremists. 

          riddle666   The persecutions are mostly pious fictions. And more christians were  killed by christiants than all the pagans combined.

          Claire:  Pious fiction? Really? Tell me about the Christians that killed other Christians.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   Glamorous is hardly the world to describe Jesus' resurrection.  It is certainly not glamorous to follow Jesus.  He demands us to deny ourselves and follow Him.  THAT is hardly glamourous.

          riddle666  If that is the case it is least glamorous to follow allah. A resurrected god that conquered death and went to hell to conquer sin and take you to heaven and give you eternal happiness, is not glamorous??

          Claire: Glamorous: Having an air of allure, romance and excitement.  That's not the resurrection of Jesus.  Glamorous alludes to something that has allure because it benefits another.  The following of Christ is not glamorous because it requires the complete denial of the self. 

          Claire Evans  wrote :   Pagan gods didn't exactly die for our sins.  Why is Allah better than Jesus? He didn't come to earth and suffer what humans suffer and then suffer the ultimate like descending into hell?  I think you are may be aware that I mention that many Christians cannot think for themselves particularly those who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.

          riddle666   People do not have to die for sins unless you want to eliminate them to prevent future crimes. So a mythical god dying is no different from a mythical god killing. God CANNOT die, that will make the word meaningless.  Suffering is either physical or mental. Which pain did jesus suffer? Physical suffering is again relative. The same pain may be intolerable to some and a minor nuisance to some other. And if I am a magical being, what will I do when I get pain?
          How does god suffer? Do you know there are people who cannot experience pain? There people who has no emotions or cannot feel it? All these do to simple brain wiring problem. So god has a brain?

          Claire:  Jesus suffering spiritual and physical suffering.  I might add that the former is far worse from experience.  Jesus sweated blood at the mere THOUGHT of what lay ahead for Him.  Sweating blood represents true agony. 

          How does God suffer? He shares the pain of everything on earth.  He feels it the way we do.  That is what He did when He died and ultimately resurrected and still does today.  Do you know what agony it is to see your child in pain? It's the same with God.  You are assuming that all emotions, etc, are from the brain.   God is a supernatural being.  I hardly think He needs a brain.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   When Jesus was crucified there wasn't that sufficient "fanfare".  Many people witnessed His resurrection for He remained on earth for a while after His resurrection and ascension.  People witnessed the miracles Paul and the apostles did after Jesus.  With this said, faith must never be taken out of the equation.  If I didn't actually know the spirit of God I would not bother being a Christian.  Why devote your life to some god that does nothing for us.   I am a rational person but I also know the spiritual realm which a lot of people don't deem rational but that is only because we are conditioned to believe it is fictitious. 

          riddle666   Nobody witnessed the resurrection. It was a mere story to make jesus glamorous. The miracles are just like the miracles done by earlier or later people, exaggerated stories. They made up the stories just like they mentioned things which they cannot know like jesus transformation, pilate’s wife’s dream.... A story totally made up.


          riddle666Believe as fictitious? No irrational has inherent contradictions, that is, it does not occur in reality. It seems real because of the vague and nebulous use of language.

          Claire yikesh, prove that nobody witnessed the resurrection.  The onus is on you to claim it is a mere story.  How do you know they are exaggerated stories? You do not know for a fact that Pilate's wife's dream did not happen.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   “If I didn't actually know the spirit of God I would not bother being a Christian.  “

          riddle666   That is called confirmation bias. We first believe something, then explain everything based on the belief – deletion, distortion and generalization. Everybody does that. And if anybody can calim that they are lead by spirit, as you said, the rapist was lead by spirit when he raped, he is not guilty.

          Claire: Confirmation bias? LMAO! That is what you have been displaying all along.  You firmly believe Jesus is not the son of God so your entire argument revolves around saying just about anything to refute this even though it is baseless.   Anyway, you do not know what I have experienced. 


          Claire Evans  wrote :   So now you are suggesting that hundreds of years before Jesus, someone thought of a messiah story that would fit Jesus? I suppose someone also thought of Jesus with the prophecy of Him being born to a virgin.  If Isaiah didn't get it quite right, obviously due to His own interpretation due to a lack of understanding, then how could it have been manipulated? Surely manipulation would mean that the manipulator would write that His kingdom is not of this earth and not that He would be King of Israel which clearly did not happen.   Tell me which pagan god resembles that?

          riddle666  Hundreds of years before? Nobody knows what all things got into this disjoined work and when. This might have got into the text around 100BC. Jesus himself didn’t get his death prophesy rightly, so Isaiah got it right?
          And this is how one manipulates “Context.

          Claire : Jesus didn't get His death prophecy right?


          Jesus knew that the rich man loved his wealth more than Jesus and one cannot inherit eternal life if one loves earthly things over Jesus.  Luke 10 says to love the Lord with all your heart.  That is the first commandment.”

          The Messiah stories were there started earlier. So when a story is there it is easy to copy, isn’t it?

          Claire :Prove to me it was copied.

          riddle666Born of virgin? Born of a women and the prophesy was directed to Ahaz. You extrapolating it later to fit your god man will not make it a prophesy. And Isaiah didn’t get it correct? It was he who was supposed to write this prophesy? But who is isaiah? Not one person, but just a collection of different stories over centuries. A later day story, a story at the beginning time of jesus got into isaiah so?

          Claire : Who's Ahaz? And I repeat, how was pierced for the transgression of man? I don't know of any Jewish person who claims this is an extrapolation. 

          riddle666Did I say it resembled god? Cyrus was Persian king.

          “Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears,”
          No, not mark but Jewish wars of josephus, but look like Isaiah prophesy..

          Claire : Oh, I didn't know that Jesus son of Ananus was born of a virgin and was pierced for our transgressions?

          riddle666If Isaiah has prophesied” A man will arise, who will be betrayed by his own disciple and will be brought to roman procurator who will crucify him”, then that might have been a prophesy. A vague prophesy that can be made to fit anything....especially in the hands of liars,  then Nostradamus is the greates prophet!

          Claire : And I said, how was pierced for man's sin and who was born of a virgin?


          Claire Evans  wrote :   A legend can only be formed over hundreds of years.  They don't spring up years after someone's demise. 

          You have to look at the practice of oral tradition back then:

          riddle666  You are quoting the same apologetic text again and again. If a written book can be manipulated, then oral tradition is easily manipulated. And new stories get along as it is circulated.

          Claire : You did not read my argument about oral tradition, did you?  In that case, NOTHING in antiquity can be considered history.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   Oh my goodness...if you believe that legends can be formed because one cannot understand what context is then you need to do some more research.  Who says that there was the same translator for Luke and Matthew? I don't think you paid any attention to my explanations.

          riddle666   Are you incapable of understanding or are you not reading. I said two different things.

          1)    There are misquotes, mistranslated and later additions in the gospels and I gave ‘hate’ as just one example. Another is the virgin, there are so many that I won’t be able to list all here.

          Claire : I will ask again, how do things like hate meaning love less eventually lead to a legend? As for virgin, you must be talking about the Isaiah prophecy.

          The argument:

          "In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "'betulah'."

          A young woman was known as a virgin in those days.  The words almah and betulah are used interchangeabley  For example, in the Hebrew texts, Genesis 24:16, Rebecca is referred to as both almah and betulah and she was a virgin.

          http://books.google.co.za/books?id=7Bg8 … mp;f=false

          Let's look at the case of Rebekah again.  For example, the servant realizes that Rebekah is unmarried, of course.  He automatically, knowing her marital status, knew her to be a virgin and that is why betulah and almah are used interchangeably here.


          Joel 1:8, the word betulah is used to describe a young married woman.  Obviously women with husbands are no longer virgins.  In fact, betulah on it's own is not good enough to insinuate a virgin.  The narrative always said after betulah, "who had not known a man."  It appears as if Isaiah used the word almah to avoid ambiguity.


          riddle6662)    You says the translator made a mistake while quoting Luke and not mathew. If it was a translation mistake how did 20 different people and 6 languages made the same mistake regarding Luke while not a single one made a mistake in Mathew. Conspiracy?

          Claire : It is not hard to figure out it means the same thing.  If you do your research on context you'd figure it out and about history too.  Read again what I said what the Hebrew context.



          Claire Evans  wrote :   Who says that God can just simply eliminate Satan? They are both powerful beings.  It is only because of the conquering of death and sin that Satan has been defeated.  Now one may ask if Satan has been defeated why is he still here? That is because we are constrained by time.  Time is actually an illusion.  The present, past and future happen simultaneously at least that is according to Einstein.   If God just clicked His fingers and Satan went "poof" what was the purpose of Jesus to die for our sins? People think that Satan is just a weak being but he is a serious opponent to God.

          riddle666   Again nonsense. How does conquering death and sin defeat satan. So satan was created for jesus to die? So god is not omnipotent?

          Claire : Who says Satan was created? Satan needs suffering to feed on.  He needs sin to give him power.  Take away the sin of the way and he has nothing to sustain him.



          riddle666And why are they fighting?  Men fight for resources and females, same? Or are they fighting over  whether communism or capitalism is good? Fight is to gather resources and females, two omnipotent need not fight.

          Claire : They are fighting over the souls of man.   God wants to reconcile with His people and Satan wants to take them to hell with him.  In case you haven't noticed, there is a huge battle between good and evil on this earth with God and Satan being the source of it respectively.


          riddle666I debated this very much whether to tell you or not. You should see a psychotherapist.

          Claire : Okay...then every Christian ought to seek a psychotherapist.  Maybe you should stop and think you may be wrong. 


          riddle666Your(everybodys) first world is your family(microcosm) which you later extrapolate to the real(macrocosm) world. Your parents are your initial gods. Now from what you are saying, I think you are seeing your father as satan and whoever helped you, may be your mother as god. That is, you are extrapolating them and the god  and satan are representing them. (PS: I am not sure whether I am using the correct words, so sorry if I’m offending you). There is no satan, only god.

          Claire : LOL! My father as Satan??  How can he be Satan? Now if I believed that then I would have to go for some psychiatric help for delusions.   And yes, you are certainly not using the correct words.  You're forgiven.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   God is love and to be the source of all love doesn't mean it is based on a decision.

          riddle666   Love is an emotion. All emotions are property of brain. As you said god has no brain, he has no love as well. If you say god is love, that means god is the property of brain.
          To love, is a decision either conscious or unconscious. Have you seen a person for the first time and talked to him/her and liked or hated him? You may not have made a conscious decision, but your mind made that decision. To make that decision, it has to depend on the brain state and your memory(experience).

          Claire :You are assuming that love has to exist in the brain and that it cannot exist in other dimensions.  The brain experiences the emotions we feel in the soul.   The soul and body work together. 

          riddle666 Reason will not help you in making a decision. In real world, reason give choices. It is emotions that determine the importance of each choice. A man who’s emotional part of brain is disjointed from the rest cannot make decision(There are persons like that) and he will lose his life as we call it.

          Regarding judgement?  Do we punish a psychotic for  doing crime? We condition people based on teaching and experience. We have to punish them, if not the conditioning will not work and the society will collapse.

          Claire :So you believe we don't have choices on earth? I thought atheists were all about reason.   I was recently in a position that I knew I could either go with something based on my emotions or something that was based on reason.  I had the choice to reject that thing based on emotion because I knew that doing it would only harm me in the end.  Reason told me that going with my emotions would have been counterproductive.  I think you underestimate the intelligence of humans.   A psychotic person actually goes to a mental institution which isn't really a punishment.  It's medical treatment.


          riddle666 Rage is a sudden burst of anger that freeze the brain. A man in rage will not drive from office to home to beat his wife, that is anger. Second if a man is repeatedly having rage and the women decided to live with him, whose fault it is. If I make a house on top of a volcano, and an eruption destroyed my house, who’s fault it is?

          Claire :Have you ever heard of battered wife syndrome?  Since we are victims of our brains and emotions and environment, as you so advocate, then how can you blame the woman?  She is a victim of her circumstances.  You say we don't have free will so does she have the choice of leaving him?  If you can't blame the psycho, then don't blame the battered woman.   I might also add that often woman are financially dependent on their spouses and will just take the beatings so her children can have a roof over their heads.  Nothing in life is black or white.


          Claire Evans  wrote : You don't know my experiences.  I came across a story from a woman that I thought was absolutely crazy and creepy.

          riddle666   The bad experiences may be the reason why you tenaciously hold on to god(as you say it) and satan against all reason. Experience conditioning is more strong than ‘learning by word’ conditioning.

          Claire :Before any bad experiences, I knew God existed.  I did go to Sunday school but I acknowledged I also felt His spirit.  You make all these conjectures based on emotions because the thought of God and Satan scare you or you feel that there is more to life than what meets the eye.  Reason tells me that humanity cannot possibly know everything and that we should consider all possibilities like parallel universes like scientists do even if it messes up our little world.


          Claire Evans  wrote : Why should God decide anything when you say our decisions are a result of our environment and experience? He doesn't have a brain.

          riddle666   We make decision because we are animals that survive in a society and in a world. God is not an organism to make decisions. For god everything is same whether it is  cockroach or a rat, tiger or a deer, a human or a orange.  Does  god need a stomasch, or nose or legs or a tongue?

          Claire :We are not going to see eye to eye unless you acknowledge the supernatural.  Also, you need to consider that Near Death Experiences are real.   It is something scientists are really interested in:

          University of Southampton Research

          "Doctors who found the first scientific evidence supporting the possible existence of an afterlife have launched a charitable foundation to further the study of the human mind at the end of life.

          University of Southampton researchers have just published a paper detailing their pioneering study into near death experiences (or near-death experiences) that suggests consciousness and the mind may continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function and the body is clinically dead.

          The team spent a year studying people resuscitated in the city's General Hospital after suffering a heart attack. The patients brought back to life were all, for varying lengths of time, clinically dead with no pulse, no respiration and fixed dilated pupils.

          Independent EEG studies have confirmed that the brain's electrical activity, and hence brain function, ceases at that time. But seven out of 63 (11 per cent) of the Southampton patients who survived their cardiac arrest recalled emotions and visions during unconsciousness."

          http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/ … study.html

          I think this should really be considered especially if a neuro surgeon had a near death experience.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 … 51475.html



          Claire Evans  wrote : So all crime and evil is done out an urge to procreate and sin? I'm sorry, but how is torturing a dog and not feeling guilty the result of a need to breed and eat?

          riddle666   Not procreate and sin, but procreate and eat. Sin is a societal construct. It is developed for the society. Torturing a dog? Do you see people torturing dogs everyday? Do you see psychotics everyday? Aberrations occur either because of brain defects or negative conditioning or both.

          Claire: Brain defects? Is the torture of a dog not evil just because of someone's negative conditioning?

          riddle666   Have you done nothing of which you were embarrassed later? Have you done nothing ’at the spur of the moment’? Most of the other times we are aware of the choices and that is what give rise to illusion of free will. But our every decision is based on emotions which are experience couple with anatomy which we are unaware. We are the product of our brain structure and circumstances. But when I say that you do not hear both, you choose only one at a time.

          Claire : You think everything is all governed by emotions and not reason.  You think that no one has the ability to rise above their emotions and make a rational decision. 

          Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus knew that the rich man loved his wealth more than Jesus and one cannot inherit eternal life if one loves earthly things over Jesus.

          riddle666 These is your version and your rationalization not to sell your belongings. You know that the early christians sold everything they had. It is described in the Acts. Similarly everybody rationalise and manipulate to fit their “normal state”.

          Claire:.   If I sell everything I have, wouldn't I be poor? And if I'm poor, wouldn't someone have to sell their belongings to me? For heaven's sake, how can God expect us to live in society without resources? Does he expect us live under a bridge or steal food? Be reasonable.


          Claire Evans  wrote :   What I meant is imploding years after Jesus died.  It is because of Paul that Christianity spread.   As much as Christianity was spread further across the globe through sin, God can use good out of evil.  There are many Buddha stories and buddhas are considered designs.  They are based on historical figures.  Now Islam is also based on truth although Allah is not a good God but Satan.   Islam survived because of violence.  Christianity survived for hundreds of years without any violence or imposing Christianity on anyone.

          riddle666  Why should it implode? Just like islam, christianity too survived through violence. Buddhist didn’t do violence, but still survives. Once a great number of people are involved it take real education to remove it out of the society and that is why the number of christians are decreasing in Europe while islam is still increasing.

          Claire:  Did the early Christians shortly after Jesus resort to violence? Did they kill those who wouldn't convert? There is no doubt Christians did that later but Christianity was established before then.   Buddhism isn't a religion therefore it doesn't require converts to survive.   I suspect the real reason Christianity is being destroyed is because there is an agenda to remove it.   New Agers believe Christianity impedes enlightenment and a god consciousness.

          1. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Me :  We can conclude what?? My question was why all the gospels disagree on what jesus said. After all, these were written years after the original event and were handed over by eyewitness and a “steadfast oral tradition”, still couldn’t reach a consensus on what jesus said on his death bed?
            You think you can resolve the conflict, good then please take up the Easter challenge. What you do is simple giving new meanings to words, which was never seen or thought by the translators of the bible nor many bible scholars. You are simply assuming some meaning to resolve the conflict.
            What do you say about the generations of jesus. That was also a simple translation mistake. May be for the ancestors vary for Romans and Jews!
            The historians all agree? Which historians? Most historians were Christians and hardly 300 years before doubting the existence was enough to attract severe penalties. So they never doubted what was given to them when they were young. Only now historians have really started to verify the veracity of jesus story. So the available evidence was enough to suggest that there was no real person behind these stories. But I still think there was one, though he never lived at the time and place as described in bible, a preacher who had some followers who was either killed or died. Here when I explain you either do not listen or listen only that you want. I am not clear in my writings or you have some comprehension problems, I do not know which as nobody else reply to this. There may or may not have been a man, but the miracles, resurrection and ascension was all later added.
            There was a preacher who advocated liberation, and was dead. What will his followers do? Just what you are doing now, change the word meanings.  After his death, it was a not a physical liberation that he preached but a spiritual one, he got resurrected and ascended to heaven and will come back. And a little help from pagan religions will help especially a good preacher like Paul is there to take up their cause. Then other real figures about which we have evidences also could help like Pandira(who was supposed to be an illegitimate child), Stada, Ananus,….. The OT((the song of hannah for mary, Bethlehem  for Bethlehem epratha, Isaiah prophesies, the child prodigy Josephus....)the phoenix and other gods that were resurrected, …..
            There is an inscription about Apollonius other that than the one you quoted, but whether he was a real man or not is the matter, but the stories. Even the bible acknowledges “rival magicians and miracle workers”. But there is no miracle, but people made stories about people’s doings which were either deliberate deception or simple false beliefs like homeopathy which got exaggerated. So not to feel less powerful they attributed miracle stories to their god too.
            When I say you only hear what you want to hear. When I say jesus story evolved like dionysius or zeus or apollonius, you only hear one name and hear that I said jesus is an exact copy of any of it. What I said is just like humans invented stories about dinysius, zeus, apollonius, prometheus... they invented jesus story too, and the previous story certainly helped them. And people like  stada and pandira and others too helped. May be some their followers after death said they have resurrected to heaven, which later became resurrected from death and went to heaven, as is evidenced by the gospels and the ridiculous attempt by Mathew to reconcile NT with OT. That is you are making a straw man to attack, rather than answer my comments. Through out the reply you display selectiveness, that is hen I say something you only read half of that and answer as if I meant something else.
            A prophesy is only a prophesy if it fairly accurate. Though in your language ‘pierced’ means crucify, in my language they both are different. And it does not appear Isaiah used the word to avoid ambiguity, Isaiah was prophesying to king Ahaz about his enemies. He said ahaz’s enemies will be conquered before the child named “Immanuel” gain maturity. You cannot simply take a few words out of context to fit the latter day story. Why “context” also is only selectively applicable?
            And a man who walked performing miracles including resurrecting dead people, on whose death day there was a 3  hour eclipse, who got resurrected and then went to heaven and who will be returning to judge humans, if not glamorous, I do not know what is glamorous, the only thing that lacks is a wand.
            I have to prove jesus story was false? What more you want, I mean other than the gospels. According to the gospels Jesus was a great sensation, moved and fed multitudes, who was captured by 600 roman soldiers, was welcomed by the whole Jerusalem who sang Hosanna, and within days asked his crucification (though according to your version when Pilate put him before a crowd, it was only Pharisees except Paul [ may be the crowd means  Pharisees in your gospel]) . The good thing is that no contemporary writers saw any of these or the “stringent oral” traditions could agree what all really happened. The oral traditions when were written down became a thousand gospels all of which differed and had to be later destroyed by Constantine and his cahoots so that only a few are available now. But you were asking something about Christians destroying books, weren’t you?
            Were it charlatans that stared Christianity? Well depends on what you mean by that word. The Keech I mentioned was not a charlatan, they firmly believed what they thought is true. But for me anybody who has no verification for spreading nonsensical beliefs, but only “spirit” to guide them are charlatans. Take Paul, he firmly believed what he taught, maybe he was not a charlatan , then take Eusebius the one who said if needed one has to lie to spread Jesus. Both did what they believed to true but are entirely different in their approaches and the latter is certainly a charlatan.
            Lewis was not a plagiarist? Have you read ‘the lion the witch and the wardrobe’ or chronicles of Narnia as is now known? Most of it is just copy of the NT. May be you won’t take it a as a copy, mere inspiration but if it was now he could infringe copy right laws.
            Jesus sweated blood? Who saw that? God does not need a brain? Then how can he suffer? His children? A cockroach is just as much as his children as is humans, so he might be suffering when you kill a cockroach or a rat. But according to you it is soul, and soul cannot suffer pain. Again it does not answer my question, if it is physical pain, how much pain Jesus suffered? Some drug addicts can inject themselves while I got a cousin who will faint on seeing blood. A ‘supernatural being’ will certainly be able to adjust the pain he can perceive. As such pain is an illusionary sensation that prevent as from getting harmed.  A soul by definition does not exist. A soul is immaterial part that is a human construct. What we mean is the essence of the personality of a person by which we distinguish that person.
            Claire Evans  wrote : The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
            1: Jesus claims only God is good.
            2: Jesus claims to be good.
            3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God."

              Me :    Where in Mark does jesus claim himself to be good? Mark Jesus was mainly a son of man, Just because you extrapolate to mean it god, doesn’t make it so.

            Claire Evans  wrote : “Heard of Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 AD? Peter was killed under Nero.  It's a bit of a stretch that no eye-witnesses were alive then.  The Romans saw Christians as a threat to their political security and accused Christians in believing superstitions”
              Me :  That would have been great if there were really persecutions. Christian fantasy will not make it a fact. Nero put tax on jews and as for romans there was no difference between christians and jews Christians might have been involved too. Nero’s persecution was mere fantasy. And Peter was killed in Rome? Why did he go to Rome? “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” Galatians 2:7. Peter’s death in rome is also a christian myth.
            And according to you christians were worshiping in private and hiding, so how does it threaten the romans? The christians may have been calling themselves as christians but for romans they are all jews and they never called them christians till the end of 1st centaury.
            "Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."

            – Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)
            Tacitus
            http://www.textexcavation.com/documents … tianos.pdf
            Look at the word more closely you can see it is corrected.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7522381_f248.jpg

            Was a forgery changing chrestos to christos is what severus did and for an accepted liar, how can anybody believe him? And  that is the name “Christus” by which a slave is called.
            Claire Evans  wrote : “ “He may have had that lost portion of Tacitus' annals.”
              Me :  The question is not why nobody after Severus didn’t notice, why nobody before Severus noticed the passage?
            Claire Evans  wrote : “ “Pagans believed if the old gods were neglected, they'd be punished.  That's hardly being tolerable to Christian beliefs.”
              Me :  Unfortunately there is no story where Romans persecute for religious beliefs. That is what Abrahamic religions do. They are the fanatics not Romans. Even the whole Rome burning and Nero fiddling is a Christian invention.

            Claire Evans  wrote : What proof do you have that the gospels were still evolving by the time Paul came onto the scene?
              Me :  What proof you got that it was not? Paul was lost to history by AD 65. Even the first gospels were written only after that. Till then it was oral traditions differeing each other, includiong jesus smiling from above the cross. Till the time of Constatine, there was no unified faith.
            Claire Evans  wrote : He was a friend of Peter, a disciple, and that is how he knew.

              Me :  He was indeed.
            And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
            Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
            But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
            – Galatians 2.7,11
            As paul himselves admit, he was no friend of peter and whatever he preached was made up by him er! Given by spirit.
            Claire Evans  wrote : Pilate was a cruel and greedy man but who is not to say that the holiness of Jesus made Him change on the spot?
              Me :  That is called wishful thinking. Caesar had to transfer him and eventually retire him because of his cruelties. And pilate and his wife went and personally told the gospel writers about the dream! Such things happen in fiction, people’s dreams, events that were not witnessed by anyone all comes into play.
            Claire Evans  wrote : “You need to answer why would the Jews want to follow a failed messiah when they were perfectly happy with Judaism?
              Me :  If all the jews followed jesus, why we still have jews? A few converted to christianity, so? Why we have followers for Koresh, or Smith of any of the cults? If they were all happy with christainity or their own respective religion, why did they convert? Why did the pagans who never heard of jesus converted? Why did the church have to introduce pagan rituals and viloence to attract and keep believers?
            A resurrected god is a failed messiah?
            Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus proved that the forgiveness of sins means that death has been conquered.
              Me :  Suppose you have a child and you want to forgive him, will you make a statue and break it and remake it to forgive him? If forgiveness means conquering death, then it means god was going to punish everybody with death and he killed a body and resurrected it to prevent himself from doing something he inteneded to do, crack pot?
            Claire Evans  wrote : “Jesus' resurrected proved to us that death has been conquered and sin.
              Me :  How? How does it prove?
            Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus had to die in order to take on all the sin of the world and descend into hell.
              Me :  Where is it said that he descended into hell?
            Why do god need a theatrics performed by himself to do a simple act of forgiving?
            Claire Evans  wrote : How could Jesus prove ever lasting life if He never taste death?  What I mean by death is the demise of the physical body and hell.  Death represents all that is lost and eternal life represents hope and triumph.
              Me :  What does that mean? You say there is a soul, so did this soul die? If not what difference does it got with suspended animation? And sacrifice is giving up entirely, not sleeping for 36 hours. All that is lost? Tell me unambigously what death is. What happens to soul during death? What happened to jesus during death?
            Claire Evans  wrote : God cannot be anywhere near sin.   Can sin exist in the kingdom of God? No.  So Jesus being full of sin meant
              Me :  That is interesting. Sin is an action performed by a man. So god cannot be any where near a man who disobeys him? Even a  human father will not do that, He will go and help his son. So what make this omnipotent god powerless. What sin did jesus do? If jesus is god, how did jesus separated from god? If jesus took on the responsibility, why should anybody repent? Aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say that one need to repent and then jesus has already taken responsibility?
            What do you mean by “forgiving”?
            Claire Evans  wrote : Pious fiction? Really? Tell me about the Christians that killed other Christians.
              Me :  Read any history textbooks how the dominant sect lead by iraneus suppressed other sects, how damasus 1 became pope.......
            Claire Evans  wrote : That is what you have been displaying all along.  You firmly believe Jesus is not the son of God so your entire argument revolves around saying just about anything to refute this even though it is baseless.   Anyway, you do not know what I have experienced.
              Me :  How does your experience make jesus the son of god? God is not a “male animal” to have sons, wifes, daughters..... God is neither an animal nor a being.
            Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus didn't get His death prophecy right?
              Me :  Three days and night will be underground, forgot that? Then count.
            Claire Evans  wrote : “, NOTHING in antiquity can be considered history. “
              Me :  It is not only written books but there is something called “ corroborative evidence”.
            Claire Evans  wrote : I will ask again, how do things like hate meaning love less eventually lead to a legend
              Me :  Got some comprehension problem? The word “hate” mistakenly translated alone does not create legend, and I never saud that. When you copy stories, then add translation mistakes as a justification to the mistakes, put new stories a legend is formed. I was merely giving that one as an example of how you try to justify the mistakes in bible.
            Claire Evans  wrote : It is not hard to figure out it means the same thing.  If you do your research on context you'd figure it out and about history too.  Read again what I said what the Hebrew context.
              Me :  Well it is hard to figure out. What you are saying is that the 20 translators who translated the bible didn’t know their job and you and you alone is wise enough to find that mistake. I would have agreed with you provided at least some made the same mistake in mathew, but alas they didn’t or if some at least correctly translated luke. The context is merely your creation to justify. For you to be right 20 scholars should be wrong.
            Claire Evans  wrote : Who says Satan was created? Satan needs suffering to feed on.  He needs sin to give him power.  Take away the sin of the way and he has nothing to sustain him.
              Me :  lol lol sorry, but I can’t help myself. One cannot feed on suffering, that is what dementors do in harry potter. So there are two eternal beings, god and satan. And gods creation is feeding satan. So when a boar is killed by a lion will satan gain power? That is pure nonsense or mere poetic language, you can choose which. But if you want to feed something, you have to give them “something”, not concepts.
            Claire Evans  wrote : “then every Christian ought to seek a psychotherapist.  Maybe you should stop and think you may be wrong.”
              Me :  Every christian do not say the world is lead by satan nor all the world is full of conspiracies. What they have is vague ideas given to them by the priests and parents,. They never sit on it as you do. They merely compartmentalize that belief in the brain and use it when they need comfort or need to justify their actions.
            Claire Evans  wrote : And yes, you are certainly not using the correct words.  You're forgiven.
              Me :  You have entirely mistaken me. I never said your father is satan. When we are young our world is the family and out care takers gods. When we grow up, we understand that they are not gods and the worlds is beyond our family. We get a god and we extrapolate our care takers to form the idea about god and satan. Your father is a psychopath(that is what you told me), so whenever  you think of satan, you are extrapolating and adjusting the “character” not the person to fit satan. That is satan is a representation of your father in your subconscious mind. No satan exist. So I was asking you for an analysis by a psychotherapist so that you can better understand the roots of your belief.
            Claire Evans  wrote : You are assuming that love has to exist in the brain and that it cannot exist in other dimensions.  The brain experiences the emotions we feel in the soul.   The soul and body work together.
              Me :  Love is a feeling. What is this dimension? If you destroy areas of brain or give chemicals that stimulate the brain you can experience love, no soul is needed. PEA, is the chemical that causes sexual love. The rest of love is mostly an action and feeling of attachment. That need “togetherness”.
            Claire Evans  wrote : :So you believe we don't have choices on earth? I thought atheists were all about reason.   I was recently in a position that I knew I could either go with something based on my emotions or something that was based on reason.  I had the choice to reject that thing based on emotion because I knew that doing it would only harm me in the end.  Reason told me that going with my emotions would have been counter-productive.  I think you underestimate the intelligence of humans.   A psychotic person actually goes to a mental institution which isn't really a punishment.  It's medical treatment.
              Me :  I do not know much about atheists. I was telling you how humans behave and think. If the emotional brain got detached by accident or disease the person cannot make decisions. Purely analytically things do not occur in the practical world. Here we have to make choices and determine the importance of choices. A person devoid of emotion cannot determine the important of choices and hence cannot take decisions. There are people like that. A little study on neurology and mind will help you understand that. I will suggest books by Ramachandran(Phantoms in brain), Steven pinker(how mind works), Kahenman(fast and slow thinking, Scott(the road less travelled), Cialdini(persuasion, Chaleb(black swan) and Daniel goleman(emotional intelligence). You can think about the cases they list and arrive at your own conclusion.
              Me :  I was not talking about psychotic person, but a normal one. We need positive as well as negative conditioning. How do you know it is dangerous to touch hot objects, by teaching from adults and experience, it is the same with crimes. The punishment act as negative conditioning.
            Claire Evans  wrote : :You may want to rethink about data being the product of the brain only.   Studies show that words and frequencies can actually change our DNA.    DNA stores data.  Read more here:
              Me :  Instead of searching dubious sites from internet try to study from standard textbooks. DNA is a chemical like a polymer, made of chemicals called nucleotides. It does not store data. But given enough enzymes it can be used to produce proteins- proteins which are building blocks and enzymes. So may you can say indirectly it stores data about the body, but that is for the laymen to understand. It can be affected by chemicals and radiation and not behaviour. And if need to be transmitted, the mutation has to occur in gametes.
            Claire Evans  wrote : : A personality change because of brain injury does not prove that the soul does not exist.
              Me :  As long as you can keep the meaning of the word vague. Can you tell me what a soul is? Which side of the brain soul resides in? Does a change in brain affect soul? What is this soul doing? What happens in a patient with Alien hand syndrome? What happens in a psychotic?
            Claire Evans  wrote : :Since we are victims of our brains and emotions and environment, as you so advocate, then how can you blame the woman?
              Me :  I neither blame the man  nor the women. In middle east the women can suffer as you describe, but I was thinking you are from America. When we punish the man, it may act as a negative conditioning, It will also help in some persons who are prone for such behaviour to think before they act. When such a deterrent is not there, more people will be acting the same way as seen in underdeveloped countries. So society needs deterrent. But people who are mentally deficient cannot be deterred by such negative conditioning because they cannot feel fear or pain.
            Claire Evans  wrote : : “Before any bad experiences, I knew God existed.
              Me :  Because you were taught so. If you were born in hindu family you would knew vishnu as god and atheist family you will study about god to tell you that such thing does not exist.
            But all are wrong. Everybody think god is a person who has emotions, who is in constant fight with satan. God is not a being. God is “IS”. What ever happened, happening or will happen, that is whatever exist, that is god. And there is nothing else, no satan.
            Claire Evans  wrote : : We are not going to see eye to eye unless you acknowledge the supernatural.  Also, you need to consider that Near Death Experiences are real.
              Me :  Super natural is what we cannot understand just like magic is what we cannot understand. Near death experiences are real for the one who experience it. A illusion created by brain. If most people get similar experience, it is because most people are similar. Add to that the generalization, distortion and confabulation we daily do.
            Claire Evans  wrote : Brain defects? Is the torture of a dog not evil just because of someone's negative conditioning?
              Me :  Evil, sin or wrong is what the society decides. In a cannibalistic society killing and eating humans are normal. But there are some people who have some brain defects(some we call psychotics) who have abnormal behavior and they are the people who usually do the thing you say and clearly that is either an abnormal connection in brain or imbalances in chemicals in the brain.
            Claire Evans  wrote : If I sell everything I have, wouldn't I be poor?
              Me :  That is what I said, Jesus said something that is inconvenient, you suddenly rationalize it. There is another hubber who is divorced yet know how jesus allow that. The Acts tell you early christians did that, didn’t it?
            Claire Evans  wrote : Did the early Christians shortly after Jesus resort to violence? Did they kill those who wouldn't convert? There is no doubt Christians did that later but Christianity was established before then.
              Me :  Just inquire how the dominant sect of today was established, it is mere politics and violence. They started to violence when they gained enough numbers to avoid retribution. Till then they played political games and adaptation of the story to people’s liking to gain followers.

            1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
              A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What up? This is indicative of an emotional disorder of the weird kind! You are the champ of the ramp, off to summer camp with the stamp, stamp . . . don't get a cramp from the amp!

              1. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                After this post I can perfectly understand you when you say it is an emotional disorder.

                1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
                  A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Then, you concur. It is never too late to seek treatment.

                  1. profile image0
                    riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Tell me the drugs you take.

            2. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Claire Evans

              Well, I think you can assume the gospels are not just mere copies if there are discrepancies in the empty tomb story.    However, the gist of the story is the same and that is why it doesn't concern historians and scholars. 

                Me :    We can conclude what?? My question was why all the gospels disagree on what jesus said. After all, these were written years after the original event and were handed over by eyewitness and a “steadfast oral tradition”, still couldn’t reach a consensus on what jesus said on his death bed?

              Reply You are picking and choosing what to regard in my comments or not.   Again...

              "Jesus probably asked why God abandoned Him and said "It is finished." Why can't He have said both?"  And at the point of death He gave up His spirit (Matthew 27:50) which one can reasonably conclude Jesus said, ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

              I ask again: why couldn't He have said both? One of the gospels could have recorded one thing that Jesus said according to an eye-witness and a different thing in another gospel according to someone else who was also there but only heard Jesus said, "It is finished", for example.   Just because the gospel writers recorded things Jesus said on the cross that was witnessed doesn't mean that is the only thing they think was said by Jesus.   It depends which eye-witness was consulted.


                Me :You think you can resolve the conflict, good then please take up the Easter challenge. What you do is simple giving new meanings to words, which was never seen or thought by the translators of the bible nor many bible scholars. You are simply assuming some meaning to resolve the conflict.
              What do you say about the generations of jesus. That was also a simple translation mistake. May be for the ancestors vary for Romans and Jews!

              Reply No, I'm giving alternative ways to think about the questions you pose to me.  Nothing is black or white.  Do you agree with me that the resurrection story can be reconciled? Is that a sound argument? If not, why?  Considering what the Jewish days were, does it clear up the confusion when Jesus was arrested?


              ]  Me : The historians all agree? Which historians? Most historians were Christians and hardly 300 years before doubting the existence was enough to attract severe penalties. So they never doubted what was given to them when they were young.

              Reply I'm not sure what I said which prompted you to say all historians agree? No historian in any piece of history is unanimous on history.   Are you telling me that people like Josephus, Tacitus (I'll address that later) and Suetonius were so scared that they just went along with the Jesus story? It's sounds rather ridiculous.



                Me : Only now historians have really started to verify the veracity of jesus story. So the available evidence was enough to suggest that there was no real person behind these stories. But I still think there was one, though he never lived at the time and place as described in bible, a preacher who had some followers who was either killed or died. Here when I explain you either do not listen or listen only that you want. I am not clear in my writings or you have some comprehension problems, I do not know which as nobody else reply to this. There may or may not have been a man, but the miracles, resurrection and ascension was all later added.

              There was a preacher who advocated liberation, and was dead. What will his followers do? Just what you are doing now, change the word meanings.  After his death, it was a not a physical liberation that he preached but a spiritual one, he got resurrected and ascended to heaven and will come back. And a little help from pagan religions will help especially a good preacher like Paul is there to take up their cause. Then other real figures about which we have evidences also could help like Pandira(who was supposed to be an illegitimate child), Stada, Ananus,….. The OT((the song of hannah for mary, Bethlehem  for Bethlehem epratha, Isaiah prophesies, the child prodigy Josephus....)the phoenix and other gods that were resurrected,

              Reply What are you talking about? You are saying that evidence REFUTES the existence of Jesus? You also make out is if a fact that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc.  Again I ask: Is the explanation I gave you regarding the supposed contradictions possible? As I said, thank goodness you aren't an historian.  You don't know how to analyse texts.  It's amazing that you believe I'm changing words around when I am just giving you explanations on what could be the case.  I can say what you are saying is just making things up to satisfy your confirmation bias.  How can a preacher preach a spiritual liberation if he was dead? Are you saying that Jesus is the preacher? If so, He couldn't exactly advocate a spiritual liberation if He was dead.

              Paul was a staunch Jew.  What interest would he have in pagan religions? How to figures like Pandira, Stada, etc, compare to Jesus? This is one heck of a conspiracy theory. 



                Me : There is an inscription about Apollonius other that than the one you quoted, but whether he was a real man or not is the matter, but the stories. Even the bible acknowledges “rival magicians and miracle workers”. But there is no miracle, but people made stories about people’s doings which were either deliberate deception or simple false beliefs like homeopathy which got exaggerated. So not to feel less powerful they attributed miracle stories to their god too.

              Reply How can the Jesus story be influenced by Apollonius if he was only written about 150 years after Jesus? There is not true his story is one of those that were coalesced to form the present Jesus.  You were wrong about that.  I don't care how many inscriptions there are, I'm not disputing his existence but your claim his story influenced Jesus'.  How do you know there are no miracles? Because you have never witnessed one? You are never going to find the truth if you just close your ears to other possibilities.   You have no proof that your claims are right.  You have no proof that people made things up about magicians.

              Celsus was a second century Roman author and very anti-Christian.  In all actuality, he hated them.  He actually accused Jesus of being a magician:

              "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding
              of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

              Now I do not believe that Celsus had any interest in deifying Jesus.  Quite the contrary as illustrated above.  He also believed he was just a trickster.  That's the argument posed by many atheists.

              http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html




                Me : When I say you only hear what you want to hear. When I say jesus story evolved like dionysius or zeus or apollonius, you only hear one name and hear that I said jesus is an exact copy of any of it. What I said is just like humans invented stories about dinysius, zeus, apollonius, prometheus... they invented jesus story too, and the previous story certainly helped them. And people like  stada and pandira and others too helped. May be some their followers after death said they have resurrected to heaven, which later became resurrected from death and went to heaven, as is evidenced by the gospels and the ridiculous attempt by Mathew to reconcile NT with OT. That is you are making a straw man to attack, rather than answer my comments. Through out the reply you display selectiveness, that is hen I say something you only read half of that and answer as if I meant something else.

              Reply The problem with you is that your argument is based on conjecture.  You have absolutely no proof the Jesus story was derived from stories about Dionysus and that just because they are inventions, that Jesus' one must be true.  Even atheist historian, Michael Grant, finds that view most ridiculous.  It doesn't help that you sometimes get your facts wrong like you claiming Stada was crucified. I'm not attacking you.  It is you that is being aggressive.


                Me  :A prophesy is only a prophesy if it fairly accurate. Though in your language ‘pierced’ means crucify, in my language they both are different. And it does not appear Isaiah used the word to avoid ambiguity, Isaiah was prophesying to king Ahaz about his enemies. He said ahaz’s enemies will be conquered before the child named “Immanuel” gain maturity. You cannot simply take a few words out of context to fit the latter day story. Why “context” also is only selectively applicable?

              Reply  No, pierced does not refer to the crucifixion.  It refers to when Jesus was pierced in the side to ensure He was dead and the water came pouring out.   Were Ahaz' enemies killed for our sins? We all the enemies deemed a singular like "he"? Come on...



                Me :And a man who walked performing miracles including resurrecting dead people, on whose death day there was a 3  hour eclipse, who got resurrected and then went to heaven and who will be returning to judge humans, if not glamorous, I do not know what is glamorous, the only thing that lacks is a wand.

              Reply No.


                Me  :I have to prove jesus story was false? What more you want, I mean other than the gospels. According to the gospels Jesus was a great sensation, moved and fed multitudes, who was captured by 600 roman soldiers, was welcomed by the whole Jerusalem who sang Hosanna, and within days asked his crucification (though according to your version when Pilate put him before a crowd, it was only Pharisees except Paul [ may be the crowd means  Pharisees in your gospel]) . The good thing is that no contemporary writers saw any of these or the “stringent oral” traditions could agree what all really happened.

              Reply 600 Roman soldiers? As I said, why should any contemporary writers right about Jesus when He was put to death like a common criminal and accused of being a magician? It is only when Christianity started gaining power that contemporaries starting writing about Him.  What  do you mean the oral traditions couldn't agree what happened?


              ]  Me : The oral traditions when were written down became a thousand gospels all of which differed and had to be later destroyed by Constantine and his cahoots so that only a few are available now. But you were asking something about Christians destroying books, weren’t you?

              Reply Well, how reliable are the other gospels if they were written in the 2nd century AD? It's obvious people made those other gospels up.  When I asked who destroyed the gospels, I was asking what Christians in Jesus time destroyed other people's work? Would the followers of Jesus do that?



                Me : Were it charlatans that stared Christianity? Well depends on what you mean by that word. The Keech I mentioned was not a charlatan, they firmly believed what they thought is true. But for me anybody who has no verification for spreading nonsensical beliefs, but only “spirit” to guide them are charlatans. Take Paul, he firmly believed what he taught, maybe he was not a charlatan , then take Eusebius the one who said if needed one has to lie to spread Jesus. Both did what they believed to true but are entirely different in their approaches and the latter is certainly a charlatan.

              Lewis was not a plagiarist? Have you read ‘the lion the witch and the wardrobe’ or chronicles of Narnia as is now known? Most of it is just copy of the NT. May be you won’t take it a as a copy, mere inspiration but if it was now he could infringe copy right laws.

              Reply  Paul claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit to support his "nonsensical beliefs".  Then why are you saying he maybe was not a charlatan?

              Is this the passage in contention regarding Eusebius?

              XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment (Plato quoted by Eusebius).

              The Greek translation uses the word "pseudos" instead of lie:


              "2. The Greek word pseudos and its corresponding verb meant not only ‘fiction’ — stories, tales — but also ‘what is not true’ and so, in suitable contexts, ‘lies’: and this ambiguity should be borne in mind."

              Consequently, unless the context forbids -- and the context is precisely the one where BURY says it does not -- the chapter heading might equally be rendered:

              XXXI.     That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

              Let's take Jesus for example.  He used fictitious stories to illustrate a point.   They aren't lies but parables.  The following from Plato supports this.


              PLATO  ' THERE are two kinds of stories, the one true, and the other false ?
                 'Yes.
                 'And we must instruct children in both, and in the false first ?
                 'I do not understand, said he, what you mean.
                 'Do you not understand, said I, that what we first tell children is a fable? And this, I suppose, is, generally speaking, fiction, though there is also some truth in it. And we use fables with children earlier than gymnastics.
                 'That is true.'

              So Plato writes. And among the Hebrews also it is the custom to teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures to those of infantine souls in a very simple way just like any fables, but to teach those of a trained mental habit the more profound and doctrinal views of the histories by means of the so-called Deuterosis and explanation of the thoughts that are unknown to the multitude.

              [Plato, Republic, ii. 376 E]  [See Desmond Lee's note on the use of the word 'fiction' here]

              CHAPTER V

              PLATO    'Do you not know then that the beginning is the chief part of every work, especially for any young and tender mind? For at that age any character that one wishes to impress on each is most easily formed and imparted.                                                                                       
                  ' Quite so.
                  'Shall we then just carelessly permit our children to listen to casual fables (composed by casual persons), and to receive into their souls opinions for the most part opposite to those which, when they are grown up, we shall think they ought to hold?
                  'We must by no means permit it.
                  ' In the first place then, it seems, we must supervise the writers of fables, and approve any good fable they may compose, and reject any that are not good. And we must persuade nurses and mothers to tell their children those which are approved, and d to form their souls by the fables much more carefully than their bodies with their hands. But the greater number of the tales which they tell them now must be rejected.'

              It's context again.

              http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/euseb … #necessary to use falsehood

                Me : Jesus sweated blood? Who saw that?

              Reply  Luke 22:44


              "And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground."

              I'll tell you this much.  When someone sweats blood they are in extreme terror and distress.  I'm sure the disciples saw this.

                Me : God does not need a brain? Then how can he suffer? His children? A cockroach is just as much as his children as is humans, so he might be suffering when you kill a cockroach or a rat. But according to you it is soul, and soul cannot suffer pain. Again it does not answer my question, if it is physical pain, how much pain Jesus suffered? Some drug addicts can inject themselves while I got a cousin who will faint on seeing blood. A ‘supernatural being’ will certainly be able to adjust the pain he can perceive. As such pain is an illusionary sensation that prevent as from getting harmed.  A soul by definition does not exist. A soul is immaterial part that is a human construct. What we mean is the essence of the personality of a person by which we distinguish that person.

              Reply  God in the form of Jesus had a brain.  That's a no-brainer.  Lol.   How can a cockroach be His children? Do you know what the definition of a child is? How do you know souls can't suffer pain?  How much pain did Jesus suffer? It must have been excruciating for Him to have died only 6 hours on the cross.  Others take days to die.   Do you think that Jesus faked the pain He was in? He came to identify with us as human.  That's a lousy way to share our experiences on earth if He shielded Himself from physical pain.  Pain an illusionary sensation? Go cut off your finger and come back and tell me that was an illusion. 

              Claire Evans  wrote : The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
              1: Jesus claims only God is good.
              2: Jesus claims to be good.
              3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God."

                Me :  Where in Mark does jesus claim himself to be good? Mark Jesus was mainly a son of man, Just because you extrapolate to mean it god, doesn’t make it so.

              Reply Mark 10:17-18.  The son of man means Jesus who came to save us. 
              Jesus was known as God also according to Hebrews 1:3 written either by Paul or Peter:

              "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being..."

              We know this was written before the gospels.

              Claire Evans  wrote : “Heard of Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 AD? Peter was killed under Nero.  It's a bit of a stretch that no eye-witnesses were alive then.  The Romans saw Christians as a threat to their political security and accused Christians in believing superstitions”

                Me :  That would have been great if there were really persecutions. Christian fantasy will not make it a fact. Nero put tax on jews and as for romans there was no difference between christians and jews Christians might have been involved too. Nero’s persecution was mere fantasy. And Peter was killed in Rome? Why did he go to Rome? “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” Galatians 2:7.


              Peter’s death in rome is also a christian myth.

              Reply  What?? Are you telling me Christians were never persecuted for their religion? Did you read the link I gave you? It's a fact that Christians were persecuted.

              Read:

              Persecution under Nero (c. 64-68). Traditional martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
              Persecution under Domitian (r. 81-96).
              Persecution under Trajan (112-117). Christianity is outlawed but Christians are not sought out.
              Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180). Martyrdom of Polycarp.
              Persecution under Septimus Severus (202-210). Martyrdom of Perpetua.
              Persecution under Decius (250-251). Christians are actively sought out by requiring public sacrifice. Could buy certificates (libelli) instead of sacrificing. Martyrdoms of bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch.
              Persecution under Valerian (257-59). Martyrdoms of Cyprian of Carthage and Sixtus II of Rome.
              Persecution under Maximinus the Thracian (235-38).

              The Fire of Rome. Illustration from Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
              Persecution under Aurelian (r. 270–275).
              Severe persecution under Diocletian and Galerius (303-324).

              I'm sorry but it is shocking that you don't know of the history of Christian persecutions. 

                Me : And according to you christians were worshiping in private and hiding, so how does it threaten the romans? The christians may have been calling themselves as christians but for romans they are all jews and they never called them christians till the end of 1st centaury.

              "Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."

              Reply What are you trying to say by quoting Galatians to me?  I'll concede that there is actually no concrete evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.  The reason why Christians were worshiping in private and hiding was BECAUSE They were being persecuted.




                Me :Was a forgery changing chrestos to christos is what severus did and for an accepted liar, how can anybody believe him? And  that is the name “Christus” by which a slave is called.

              [color=blue]Reply
              Do you mean Sulpicius? Severus was a Roman Emperor.

              Tacitus had a great hatred for Christians.  He truly did.  "Chrestianos", which is suggested to have been altered, is actually a very vulgar form for the name "Christianos".  However, later on in that passage, He refers to Jesus as Christus, not Chrestus. 

              Greek translation:

              http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ter%253D44

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … ristianity

              What I believed happened was that perhaps perhaps Sulpicius was so offended by what Tacitus wrote, that he altered it to make it look like an "i".   Josephus' works was subject to that, too.


              Claire Evans  wrote : “ “He may have had that lost portion of Tacitus' annals.”


                Me :    The question is not why nobody after Severus didn’t notice, why nobody before Severus noticed the passage?

              Reply Well, if we have that extant original manuscript today, which I provided the picture for, then somebody else must have noticed. 


              Claire Evans  wrote : “ “Pagans believed if the old gods were neglected, they'd be punished.  That's hardly being tolerable to Christian beliefs.”

                Me :  Unfortunately there is no story where Romans persecute for religious beliefs. That is what Abrahamic religions do. They are the fanatics not Romans. Even the whole Rome burning and Nero fiddling is a Christian invention.

              Reply It is true that Nero fiddling as Rome burnt is pure fiction. 



              Claire Evans  wrote : What proof do you have that the gospels were still evolving by the time Paul came onto the scene?

                Me :  What proof you got that it was not? Paul was lost to history by AD 65. Even the first gospels were written only after that. Till then it was oral traditions differeing each other, includiong jesus smiling from above the cross. Till the time of Constatine, there was no unified faith.

              Reply  Don't put the onus on me now.  You made the claim that gospels were still evolving now prove it.  Evidence suggests that the gospels were written before 70 AD.  Gnostics believed Jesus was only a spirit and not a physical being.  Then how could he have been smiling from the cross? It's sheer fiction as it has no historical basis. 


              Claire Evans  wrote : He was a friend of Peter, a disciple, and that is how he knew.

                Me :  He was indeed.
              And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
              Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
              But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
              – Galatians 2.7,11

              As paul himselves admit, he was no friend of peter and whatever he preached was made up by him er! Given by spirit.

              Reply They definitely fought, that's for sure but they shared their love for Christ.  They were not close friends because there was tension.  But Peter said:

              "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV)''




              Claire Evans  wrote : Pilate was a cruel and greedy man but who is not to say that the holiness of Jesus made Him change on the spot?

                Me :    That is called wishful thinking. Caesar had to transfer him and eventually retire him because of his cruelties. And pilate and his wife went and personally told the gospel writers about the dream! Such things happen in fiction, people’s dreams, events that were not witnessed by anyone all comes into play.

              Reply  It could have happened.  But you seemed to have missed this part:

              "However, Pilate was between a rock and a hard place.   He was afraid if he allowed Jesus to die, His followers would rebel and Caesar would have done away with him.  If he didn't allow Jesus to die, the Jews who wanted Him dead would have rebelled.     So not wanting Jesus to die didn't necessarily mean that he felt sorry for Him.   Pontius Pilate was no different to the leaders we have today.   If there is an uprising, he would not hesitate to order that brute force be used against violent protestors.  Do you think Obama cared when looters were killed on the spot by the police after Hurricane Katrina?

              It's most likely my above explanation is more likely than Him being influenced by the holiness of Jesus."

              Don't cherry pick.  And, no, the gospel writers could not have been told as there were many of them and only wrote at the earliest about 50 AD.   

              We can only speculate how it was known that Claudius had that dream.   She could have been so inspired that she did speak to the disciples.  Anyway, that is immaterial to me.



              Claire Evans  wrote : “You need to answer why would the Jews want to follow a failed messiah when they were perfectly happy with Judaism?

                Me :    If all the jews followed jesus, why we still have jews? A few converted to christianity, so? Why we have followers for Koresh, or Smith of any of the cults? If they were all happy with christainity or their own respective religion, why did they convert? Why did the pagans who never heard of jesus converted? Why did the church have to introduce pagan rituals and viloence to attract and keep believers?
              A resurrected god is a failed messiah?

              Reply I didn't say all the Jews, did I? I don't think there were just a few Christians.   I think the Roman empire would not have found them threatening or even write about them.   Koresh followers didn't know the Holy Spirit in the first place.  Just because they were Christian doesn't mean they knew Him at all.  The early Christians were inspired by the Pentacost.   I think pagans witnessed Paul's miracles that he did in the name of Jesus.  The church introduced paganism to attract pagans not to keep followers.  In fact, many Christians did not like the introduction to paganism at all.   The Jews expected a messiah that would liberate them from the Romans and be King of Israel.  Now hanging on a cross is not exactly king material.  Those Jews who didn't witness the resurrection would think He was a failed messiah.


              Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus proved that the forgiveness of sins means that death has been conquered.

                Me :    Suppose you have a child and you want to forgive him, will you make a statue and break it and remake it to forgive him? If forgiveness means conquering death, then it means god was going to punish everybody with death and he killed a body and resurrected it to prevent himself from doing something he inteneded to do, crack pot?

              Reply  Who said God punishes those with death and hell? Hell is the complete separation from God.  Taking on the sin of the world and receiving forgiveness, Jesus could reconcile with the Father.  People punish themselves with hell by rejecting God and hanging onto their sin.   Satan will claim those who reject God. 



              Claire Evans  wrote : “Jesus' resurrected proved to us that death has been conquered and sin.

              ]  Me :  How? How does it prove?

              Reply Ah, resurrection tends to mean that death has been conquered.   The opposite of life is death and sin represents death.



              Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus had to die in order to take on all the sin of the world and descend into hell.

                Me :    Where is it said that he descended into hell?

              , Reply: As I said, the definition of hell is the complete separation from God.

                Me :Why do god need a theatrics performed by himself to do a simple act of forgiving?

              Reply If Jesus had not died and taken on our sin, we could not be forgiven.  Our sin would be too great.  It is only because HE took on the responsibility that we can be forgiven.  It's not a simple case of, "I forgive you." And, of course, the resurrection proves that Jesus is the son of God.  Christianity would not be in existence if it wasn't for the resurrection.   Who would know that Jesus reconciles us with God?


              Claire Evans  wrote : How could Jesus prove ever lasting life if He never taste death?  What I mean by death is the demise of the physical body and hell.  Death represents all that is lost and eternal life represents hope and triumph.

                Me :  What does that mean? You say there is a soul, so did this soul die? If not what difference does it got with suspended animation? And sacrifice is giving up entirely, not sleeping for 36 hours. All that is lost? Tell me unambigously what death is. What happens to soul during death? What happened to jesus during death?

              Reply No, the soul never dies.  In hell, it is tormented for ever and ever.  The resurrection means us getting a glorified physical body.  That is not our earthly body but not a spirit wafting around either.  Sleeping for 36 hours? Wow.  No, that was when He was in hell.  You are also thinking in times of our time.  In all actuality, there is no sense of past, present and future as they happen simultaneously.  To this day, God still suffers and will do so to the very end.  You mean, "What happens to the soul after death?" To those who love Jesus, I would believe it would enter a glorified body.  Of course, I'm not omniscient but I assume that is what the Bible is teaching us.

              Claire Evans  wrote : God cannot be anywhere near sin.   Can sin exist in the kingdom of God? No.  So Jesus being full of sin meant

                Me :  That is interesting. Sin is an action performed by a man. So god cannot be any where near a man who disobeys him? Even a  human father will not do that, He will go and help his son. So what make this omnipotent god powerless. What sin did jesus do? If jesus is god, how did jesus separated from god? If jesus took on the responsibility, why should anybody repent? Aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say that one need to repent and then jesus has already taken responsibility?

              Reply   Yes, but Satan is the source of sin.  Without Satan, no one can perform sin because it wouldn't exist.  The reason why Jesus came to earth is so that we CAN be reconciled with God.  He doesn't want to be away from us.  He doesn't want to be in heaven all alone.  Jesus is the link between us and God.  Is it not the ultimate act of love to take on all that is evil so that we can be redeemed? Jesus did not commit sin but He took on the responsibility of sin on our behalf.  In that state of sin that we are responsible for, He got separated from God.  To clarify, Jesus taking on our responsibility of sin does not mean we can sin and not repent.  When one sins, they drift further and further away from God.  No, taking on responsibility means we can be FORGIVEN if we truly repent.  If Jesus had not taken on our sin, there would be no chance for forgiveness at all and our fate would be hell.  When I do something wrong, even something small, it will make me drift from God even a little.  If I continue doing that, God will become a stranger to me and maybe an enemy.  If I repent truly, God will wipe that slate clean. 


                Me ]What do you mean by “forgiving”?

              Reply You know what forgiving means.   It is God pardoning sin with true repentance.

              Claire Evans  wrote : Pious fiction? Really? Tell me about the Christians that killed other Christians

                Me :  Read any history textbooks how the dominant sect lead by iraneus suppressed other sects, how damasus 1 became pope.......

              Reply  No, I'm talking about those disciples and apostles who lived during the time of Jesus and Paul, etc.  Did they kill the Romans when they were being persecuted?


              Claire Evans  wrote : That is what you have been displaying all along.  You firmly believe Jesus is not the son of God so your entire argument revolves around saying just about anything to refute this even though it is baseless.   Anyway, you do not know what I have experienced.

                Me :  How does your experience make jesus the son of god? God is not a “male animal” to have sons, wifes, daughters..... God is neither an animal nor a being.

              Reply  Mary was a human being and she bore the son of God in the flesh that is Jesus.  So it's not like a mother spirit and father spirit just planting a seed in the ground and there comes Jesus.  The son is the earthly representation of God.



              Claire Evans  wrote : Jesus didn't get His death prophecy right?

                Me :  Three days and night will be underground, forgot that? Then count.

              Reply  Remember what I said about the Jewish hours?

              Claire Evans  wrote : “, NOTHING in antiquity can be considered history. “

                Me :  It is not only written books but there is something called “ corroborative evidence”.

              Reply And there are no extra-biblical sources that write about Jesus?  Please pay attention:

              "how well does the New Testament compare with other ancient writings with regard to both the number of copies and the time gap from the originals? More than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today in the original Greek language. Many of these manuscripts are merely fragments, while others are virtually complete books. When counting translations into other languages, the number is a staggering 24,000 – dating from the second to the fifteenth century.
              Compare that with the second-best-documented ancient historical manuscript, Homer’s Iliad, with 643 copies.[8] And remember that most ancient historical works have far fewer existing manuscripts than that one does (usually fewer than 10). New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger remarked, “In contrast with these figures [of other ancient manuscripts], the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.”[9]"

              Even critical scholar John A. T. Robinson has admitted, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”[12] Professor of law John Warwick Montgomery affirmed, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[13]



              Claire Evans  wrote : I will ask again, how do things like hate meaning love less eventually lead to a legend

                Me :  Got some comprehension problem? The word “hate” mistakenly translated alone does not create legend, and I never saud that. When you copy stories, then add translation mistakes as a justification to the mistakes, put new stories a legend is formed. I was merely giving that one as an example of how you try to justify the mistakes in bible.

              Reply As I illustrated above, if one does hard research then one can find out what was intended.  I understand your argument because the early Christians really believed Jesus would come in their life time.  I think in that case it was something they really badly wanted.  I believe the thought of the world in 2000 years' time was just too much of a concept for them to grasp.  Perhaps that is why God felt the need to reveal end times through John of Patmos?  I think Revelation illustrates what needs to happen before Christ returns.


              Claire Evans  wrote : It is not hard to figure out it means the same thing.  If you do your research on context you'd figure it out and about history too.  Read again what I said what the Hebrew context.

                Me :  Well it is hard to figure out. What you are saying is that the 20 translators who translated the bible didn’t know their job and you and you alone is wise enough to find that mistake. I would have agreed with you provided at least some made the same mistake in mathew, but alas they didn’t or if some at least correctly translated luke. The context is merely your creation to justify. For you to be right 20 scholars should be wrong.

              Reply Doing more research, you are right.  It IS hard to figure out.  I meant what "hate" meaning "love less" wasn't hard to figure out. 

              Claire Evans  wrote : Who says Satan was created? Satan needs suffering to feed on.  He needs sin to give him power.  Take away the sin of the way and he has nothing to sustain him.

                Me :    lol lol sorry, but I can’t help myself. One cannot feed on suffering, that is what dementors do in harry potter. So there are two eternal beings, god and satan. And gods creation is feeding satan.

              Reply Let me tell you from experiences, Satan does feed on suffering.  The more one suffers, the more powerful he gets.  Suffering emits low frequencies which he can consume.  Satanists drink the blood of sacrificed victims because of the adrenaline that is released because of terror.  Demons possessing these Satanists then actually feed off that adrenaline in the blood.   It's the same if a child is raped.  The demon possessing the rapist can actually be empowered because of the suffering of that child.  It is because of the energy released. 

              Aleister Crowley illustrates this in Magik in theory and practice

              It was the theory of the ancient magicians that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of this animal this energy is liberated suddenly. For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim:

                Me: So when a boar is killed by a lion will satan gain power? That is pure nonsense or mere poetic language, you can choose which. But if you want to feed something, you have to give them “something”, not concepts.

              Reply   Come on, you ought to know that a lion is not committing a sin when killing a boar.  It is doing so to survive.

              Claire Evans  wrote : “then every Christian ought to seek a psychotherapist.  Maybe you should stop and think you may be wrong.”

                Me :  Every christian do not say the world is lead by satan nor all the world is full of conspiracies. What they have is vague ideas given to them by the priests and parents,. They never sit on it as you do. They merely compartmentalize that belief in the brain and use it when they need comfort or need to justify their actions.

              Reply   If the world is not led by Satan, why is evil prevailing over good? Why is there so much evil in government?  Most things we hear about our conspiracies.  The world is a lie. 

              Claire Evans  wrote : And yes, you are certainly not using the correct words.  You're forgiven.

                Me :  You have entirely mistaken me. I never said your father is satan.

              Reply  I never said you said my father is Satan.  I said: "! My father as Satan??  How can he be Satan?"
              When I asked, "How can he be Satan", I am asking why I should believe he is Satan.  In other words, how can he be Satan to me?


                Me : When we are young our world is the family and out care takers gods. When we grow up, we understand that they are not gods and the worlds is beyond our family. We get a god and we extrapolate our care takers to form the idea about god and satan. Your father is a psychopath(that is what you told me), so whenever  you think of satan, you are extrapolating and adjusting the “character” not the person to fit satan. That is satan is a representation of your father in your subconscious mind. No satan exist. So I was asking you for an analysis by a psychotherapist so that you can better understand the roots of your belief.

              Reply  You are making a lot of assumptions.  I have mentioned the devil to my psychiatrist before when I had night terrors and was on the brink of seriously considering suicide.  Although he said my night terrors were not from the devil, he did not say my perceptions of the devil come from any deep-rooted experiences.  So you are being too simplistic and your are arguing from a viewpoint that makes sense to you.  The last thing you'd consider is that Satan does exist.  It is extremely dangerous to not believe Satan exists because people denying his existence only makes him stronger.  If a country goes to war and doesn't know who or what there enemy is doing, they will be sitting ducks.


              Claire Evans  wrote : You are assuming that love has to exist in the brain and that it cannot exist in other dimensions.  The brain experiences the emotions we feel in the soul.   The soul and body work together.

                Me :  [/b] Love is a feeling. What is this dimension? If you destroy areas of brain or give chemicals that stimulate the brain you can experience love, no soul is needed. PEA, is the chemical that causes sexual love. The rest of love is mostly an action and feeling of attachment. That need “togetherness”.

              Reply  Some say it is the fourth dimension. 

              http://www.multidimensions.com/MDC/mdc_1dim.html

              Claire Evans  wrote : :So you believe we don't have choices on earth? I thought atheists were all about reason.   I was recently in a position that I knew I could either go with something based on my emotions or something that was based on reason.  I had the choice to reject that thing based on emotion because I knew that doing it would only harm me in the end.  Reason told me that going with my emotions would have been counter-productive.  I think you underestimate the intelligence of humans.   A psychotic person actually goes to a mental institution which isn't really a punishment.  It's medical treatment.


                Me :  I do not know much about atheists. I was telling you how humans behave and think. If the emotional brain got detached by accident or disease the person cannot make decisions. Purely analytically things do not occur in the practical world. Here we have to make choices and determine the importance of choices. A person devoid of emotion cannot determine the important of choices and hence cannot take decisions. There are people like that. A little study on neurology and mind will help you understand that. I will suggest books by Ramachandran(Phantoms in brain), Steven pinker(how mind works), Kahenman(fast and slow thinking, Scott(the road less travelled), Cialdini(persuasion, Chaleb(black swan) and Daniel goleman(emotional intelligence). You can think about the cases they list and arrive at your own conclusion.

              Reply  If you are not an atheist, then what are you? If as scientist is working out a formula is he guided by his emotions in some way? When I meant by emotion are emotions that cloud someone's judgement. 

              Claire Evans  wrote : :You may want to rethink about data being the product of the brain only.   Studies show that words and frequencies can actually change our DNA.    DNA stores data.  Read more here:

                Me :    Instead of searching dubious sites from internet try to study from standard textbooks. DNA is a chemical like a polymer, made of chemicals called nucleotides. It does not store data. But given enough enzymes it can be used to produce proteins- proteins which are building blocks and enzymes. So may you can say indirectly it stores data about the body, but that is for the laymen to understand. It can be affected by chemicals and radiation and not behaviour. And if need to be transmitted, the mutation has to occur in gametes.

              Reply   What is so dubious about my source? Only 10% of our DNA is used for building proteins.  What about the other 90%? Why would Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev be considered dubious?



              Claire Evans  wrote : : A personality change because of brain injury does not prove that the soul does not exist.

                Me :  [/b] As long as you can keep the meaning of the word vague. Can you tell me what a soul is? Which side of the brain soul resides in? Does a change in brain affect soul? What is this soul doing? What happens in a patient with Alien hand syndrome? What happens in a psychotic?

              Reply   It is the spiritual part of the immaterial body that is said to be immortal and therefore the soul cannot reside in the brain.  I think I've explained this before.  No amount of brain damage can alter the soul because it is separate.  If you have a computer and your modem breaks and you can't access the Internet doesn't mean there is something wrong with your computer.


              Claire Evans  wrote : :Since we are victims of our brains and emotions and environment, as you so advocate, then how can you blame the woman?

                Me :    I neither blame the man  nor the women. In middle east the women can suffer as you describe, but I was thinking you are from America. When we punish the man, it may act as a negative conditioning, It will also help in some persons who are prone for such behaviour to think before they act. When such a deterrent is not there, more people will be acting the same way as seen in underdeveloped countries. So society needs deterrent. But people who are mentally deficient cannot be deterred by such negative conditioning because they cannot feel fear or pain.

              Reply   Neither blame the man nor woman? Why should anybody be held accountable for their actions? I can say my father is psychopath and therefore I am justified to kill men.   What do you mean only those in the Middle East have battered wife syndrome? You can't actually believe it doesn't happen in America?  I psychotic person according to a court of law does not appreciate the evil of their act.  Therefore they get treated in medical facilities instead of going to jail.  But I am talking about mentally sound people.


              Claire Evans  wrote : : “Before any bad experiences, I knew God existed.

                Me :  Because you were taught so. If you were born in hindu family you would knew vishnu as god and atheist family you will study about god to tell you that such thing does not exist.

              Reply  You can think that.


                Me :But all are wrong. Everybody think god is a person who has emotions, who is in constant fight with satan. God is not a being. God is “IS”. What ever happened, happening or will happen, that is whatever exist, that is god. And there is nothing else, no satan.

              Reply Have you ever considered you may be wrong?


              Claire Evans  wrote : : We are not going to see eye to eye unless you acknowledge the supernatural.  Also, you need to consider that Near Death Experiences are real.

                Me :    Super natural is what we cannot understand just like magic is what we cannot understand. Near death experiences are real for the one who experience it. A illusion created by brain. If most people get similar experience, it is because most people are similar. Add to that the generalization, distortion and confabulation we daily do.

              Reply Supernatural are things that exist outside of our natural world or power that seems to violate the law of nature.  It is observable and not at the same time.    I'm sorry, but I am going to take a neurologist seriously when he says NDE's are not from the brain.  An example of DNA storing data that is not physical can be illustrated by those born blind being able to see during a NDE. 

              http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite … sp?ID=6789




              Claire Evans  wrote : Brain defects? Is the torture of a dog not evil just because of someone's negative conditioning?

                Me :    Evil, sin or wrong is what the society decides. In a cannibalistic society killing and eating humans are normal. But there are some people who have some brain defects(some we call psychotics) who have abnormal behavior and they are the people who usually do the thing you say and clearly that is either an abnormal connection in brain or imbalances in chemicals in the brain.

              Reply Since evil can be relative, God takes that into account.  However, there are people who just enjoy seeing suffering.  They will torture an animal for no reason at all but the enjoyment of suffering.


              Claire Evans  wrote : If I sell everything I have, wouldn't I be poor?

                Me :    That is what I said, Jesus said something that is inconvenient, you suddenly rationalize it. There is another hubber who is divorced yet know how jesus allow that. The Acts tell you early christians did that, didn’t it?

              Reply  I've tried to explain the context of what Jesus was saying.  Why must we take reason out of the equation? God doesn't expect me to be dirt poor.  He said He will provide for our needs not make us needy.  I don't know the circumstances in which that hubber divorced so I can't comment.  I don't get what you are saying about Acts.


              Claire Evans  wrote : Did the early Christians shortly after Jesus resort to violence? Did they kill those who wouldn't convert? There is no doubt Christians did that later but Christianity was established before then.

                Me :  Just inquire how the dominant sect of today was established, it is mere politics and violence. They started to violence when they gained enough numbers to avoid retribution. Till then they played political games and adaptation of the story to people’s liking to gain followers.

              Reply  I 'm glad you know acknowledge the early Christians didn't resort to violence even though you said they played political games.

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                your answers are so long and go against everything that the majority of christians believe that they're beginning to be even more ridiculous and I can no longer take the time to reference, research and provide evidence to counteract them.  Do you know many biblical scholars?  You seem to be putting a lot of words in their mouths and assumptions about what they do or do not care about.  the fact that the early church couldn't agree on ANYTHING about jesus is a HUGE problem in the field of biblical study.  The fact that none of the resurrection accounts agree on anything is a HUGE problem.  In the field of biblical scholarship, people are asking these questions all the time and finding it to be a major flaw in christian doctrine - yet you seem to not be aware of it.

                I don't know who said it, but they were spot on.  If you indeed ARE a christian at all - you're a denomination unto yourself, and you rationalize, justify and ignore the parts of your beliefs that don't add up.  You have an answer for everything, which is commendable on some level - but that doesn't make your "answers" correct.  In fact, they seem to fly in the face of history, biblical scholars and the church at large.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  In case you are not aware, I'm not talking to you.  I'm conversing with Riddle666 so if my answers are too long then go somewhere else.  I have a right to give my comments.  Your points have already been addressed in my previous comments.  Take it or leave it.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There you go again Claire, being so very Christian, that you can't help but tell someone else to mind their own business. I wonder if that's what Jesus would have said?

                  2. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow...just like you have the right to make comments SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE.  Sucks, doesn't it?

              2. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
                  A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Quite the worker for your cause.

              3. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Claire: I ask again: why couldn't He have said both?
                Me Because gospels are not a running commentary. They were written later, very much later. If two eyewitnesses heard what Jesus said and each heard differently won’t they later discuss? Or will the two eyewitnesses go and start separate “oral traditions” and write two separate accounts especially considering one account is an embarrassing one, god’s son asking why god had abandoned him?
                Claire:  “Do you agree with me that the resurrection story can be reconciled?”
                Me If you do too much extrapolation and ignore some parts. If you do that any myths can be made as accounts of real events. Resurrection itself is a myth, just like any other myth. The resurrection of a dead body is the basic theme on which the rest of the story is build up. And the progression of the story is evidenced by the four gospels where in the first jesus is “son of man” while in the last he is god himself, that is as the story is told and retold it pick more and more elements in either direction, earthly and heavenly. So all the connections to a man, if there was one is lost and the whole story became a mere myth. As they say “inspired” from actual event but fictional.
                Claire:  “Are you telling me that people like Josephus, Tacitus (I'll address that later) and Suetonius were so scared that they just went along with the Jesus story?
                You are saying that evidence REFUTES the existence of Jesus?
                He couldn't exactly advocate a spiritual liberation if He was dead.
                Paul was a staunch Jew.  What interest would he have in pagan religions? How to figures like Pandira, Stada, etc, compare to Jesus? This is one heck of a conspiracy theory.
                Me You were telling me that Jesus was treated like any a common criminal and that is why he was not known. At the same breath you are telling me that he was noticed by a whole bunch including Josephus, Tacitus. If jesus was treated like a common criminal who was known only to a handful, there is no way even josephus know about jesus, after all those people were not for excavations but enquire about eye witness and eyewitness witness.
                I never said evidences refute jesus. What I said is we have no evidence to say “jesus of nazerath” lived. All gospel accounts are just like any other mythical stories, contain magic, miracles, god and satan talking with people, death, resurrection….impossible events.  According to gospels it was “multitudes” who followed him, he taught in synagogues, “one roman detachment” along with “elders” of the people went to capture him (for a common criminal that is too much), they had to go at night fearing the public, the whole public asking him to be crucified, the earth quake and prolonged unnatural darkness at the time of death and mysteriously forgetting him later, conspiracy? And none of it was heard by josephus or any other contemporary writers.
                [The group that came to arrest Jesus was composed of Roman soldiers, Jewish servants and an apostate apostle (v. 3). John will make it clear that both Jew and Gentile are guilty of the death of the Son of God. Jesus is about to die for the life of the world, and the whole world needs it. The Jewish forces that were sent were the same as those sent to arrest Jesus once before (7:32, 45-46). They were not a police force as such but "court servants at the disposal of the Sanhedrin when necessary for police purposes" (Brown 1994:1:249). The detachment of soldiers (speira) refers to a cohort, a group of 600 soldiers under a military tribune (chiliarchos, vv. 3, 12; NIV, commander). The entire cohort would not have been deployed on this mission, but there would have been a significant force. The festivals in Jerusalem were always politically volatile, and after the welcome Jesus had received there was good reason to expect trouble--or so it would have seemed to the Roman and Jewish authorities who understood Jesus so poorly. They bring torches and lanterns to search for the Light of the World; they bring weapons against the Prince of Peace (Hendriksen 1953:378).]
                No contemporary of jesus, noticed jesus. Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are not contemporaries. There were contemporary writers like Philo, Justus who never noticed. There was another contemporary who never heard about an earthly jesus, though a prolific writer he never knew about the miraculous events of jesus birth, death or what he said. He had to invent all for himself without the help of any “eyewitness” - Paul. The authenticity of Josephus writing is under question. The other two mentions christains and Christian beliefs, not jesus, and nobody denies there were christains at the end of first century, though he said passages are also in question. 
                And Jesus didn’t notice any important events of that time. Augustus died, so many rebels appeared in Jerusalem.. so many events happened, but jesus didn’t notice any.
                Pandira was supposed to be a bastard and a “revolutionary”. If he managed to get some diehard followers are they going to accept that he was a bastard son? No they will invent that he was impregnated by god himself. And throughout history extra ordinary men with legitimate fathers were thought to be offspring of gods. After death what would his followers do? Just like the “Keeches” they invent a reason and try for social validation. So he was resurrected and went to heaven. And came along paul, who preached a spiritual liberation which helped the formation of the stories.
                So if we examine the gospels the same pattern recurs. In Mark he went to heaven almost the same day while when it reached Acts it was 40 days. So there might have been a real jesus a preacher who preached, but who, we do not know. It may be Pandira, stada or myriad of any other jesus. Or it may be the teacher of righteousness or myriad of other jewish rebels, who obviously failed.
                Claire:  How do you know there are no miracles? Because you have never witnessed one? You are never going to find the truth if you just close your ears to other possibilities.
                Me If you are open to any possibilities, then you live in fantasy world, not reality. Even harry potter will be real then. There are no miracles, and all that happen can be explained if one takes the sufficient time to examine. The rest are mere exaggerations or mis- interpretations. Homeopathy is considered a legitimate medicine and so many people are “cured” with it, but there is no cure because of homeopathy. It would have been a “miracle” in ancient world, but now there is no miracle. All ancient seers, and gods were credited with miracles. Even now every saint, pilgrimage centers and gods(Christian and non Christian alike) have miracles attributed to them which is happening throughout the world, not alone past ones. If people do not believe such “miracle” stories, such business will not thrive. It is just the “belief” of the people and their selective hearing, bias that makes these real, not facts. As we know how human behave and how diseases behave, we know that some luck and confirmation bias is enough, just like the formation of a cult. The followers will invent whatever is needed for the perpetuation of beliefs. Instead of wasting time on conspiracy websites, if you take sufficient time to study how humans behave and how cult forms you can easily figure this out, but that takes courage, courage to change all your beliefs and face the world alone.
                Claire:  It doesn't help that you sometimes get your facts wrong like you claiming Stada was crucified
                Me I might have got the name wrong or the person wrong, I do not deny for I am quoting from my memory only. I have no intention of going through all the texts again. But I am clear about the point I make, there were people like jesus who got themselves killed and we have some references available about them(not every one of them, there were a large number of rebels the romans crucified) but we do not have anything about a jesus as described in bible. So any of the jesus or persons like that may be the character behind the bible, but we have no way of proving and disproving it.
                Claire:  Celsus was a second century Roman author and very anti-Christian.  In all actuality, he hated them.  He actually accused Jesus of being a magician:
                Me Celsus was trying to explain that the god of Christianity was a magician. He was not a scientist of present age but a man of ancient world who thought magic was real and dead soldiers go to heaven.  That does not confirm miracles, but confirm that the ancient people believed miracles can happen.
                And yes it is fable. A fable to distance oneself from the cruel god of OT to becoming a loving god in NT.
                Claire: You have absolutely no proof the Jesus story was derived from stories about Dionysus and that just because they are inventions, that Jesus' one must be true.
                MeJust as you have no proof that this jesus fellow lived except for a few mythical stories. The whole ancient contemporaries conspired not to mention about a man whom whole Jerusalem knew?
                Claire: No, pierced does not refer to the crucifixion.  It refers to when Jesus was pierced in the side to ensure He was dead and the water came pouring out.   Were Ahaz' enemies killed for our sins? We all the enemies deemed a singular like "he"? Come on...
                MeDo not mix up. Isaiah never said “he will be crucified”, the piercing was a Christian fiction (later) to give some resemblance to Isaiah prophesy. And it makes that we have no prophesy.
                Ahaz? What has Ahaz do with this prophesy? It was about the virgin giving birth to a child and that prophesy was fulfilled even before Isaiah 42 is reached. But this one has nothing to do with Jesus, it was about “Immanuel”. Two “prophesies” that were hijacked by chirtsians to “prove” their god is the same as in OT.
                Claire: And a man who walked performing miracles including resurrecting dead people, on whose death day there was a 3  hour eclipse, who got resurrected and then went to heaven and who will be returning to judge humans, if not glamorous, I do not know what is glamorous, the only thing that lacks is a wand.

                Reply No.
                Me ‘No’ only for you. The converts thought it glamorous enough to convert.
                Claire: Well, how reliable are the other gospels if they were written in the 2nd century AD? It's obvious people made those other gospels up.  When I asked who destroyed the gospels, I was asking what Christians in Jesus time destroyed other people's work? Would the followers of Jesus do that?
                Me Gospels of Thomas was supposed to written between AD 40 and 140. There were several which were destroyed and hence are not available. And it is the Christians themselves that destroyed the gospels of rival sects. It is by luck alone some of the ancient texts are surviving.
                Jesus time? Considering that none was written during Jesus time, we do not have to bother which were destroyed in his time.
                Claire: Then why are you saying he maybe was not a charlatan?
                Only in the sense that he believed what he preached and he was not trying to deliberately fool people.
                Claire: I'm sure the disciples saw this.
                MeWho saw it? The disciples were sleeping.
                Claire: Do you know what the definition of a child is?
                Me I do, do you? If all living beings in this world are created by god, then all are his children. If you say humans are dearer to him, then you accuse god of partiality and making him a common king, not god.
                Claire: That's a lousy way to share our experiences on earth if He shielded Himself from physical pain.  Pain an illusionary sensation? Go cut off your finger and come back and tell me that was an illusion.
                Me Pain varies with person and as god jesus allowed himself to suffer the excruciating and got away with it in 6 hours? Do you know that jesus was not the only person who was tortured and killed? Do you know that there are people who perceive pain as a pleasurable sensation? Yes, pain is illusionary in that it is a perception, a perception to identify things that can cause harm and hence to avoid. People who cannot perceive pain die early. My cousin will faint if he sees a needle while some people can do what exactly you said without much suffering, so what jesus took was of his on liking.
                Claire: Mark 10:17-18.  The son of man means Jesus who came to save us.
                Jesus was known as God also according to Hebrews 1:3 written either by Paul or Peter:
                Me Question is about mark When I ask about mark why you quote something else. In Mark’s gospel Jesus is son of man, not a full-fledged god as in john. My question is where in Mark jesus claims himself to be god?
                Claire: What?? Are you telling me Christians were never persecuted for their religion? Did you read the link I gave you? It's a fact that Christians were persecuted
                MeWhat I said is most persecution stories of Christians are exaggerated and mere fictions. We know nothing about peter especially considering what we know about paul. Paul was lost to history in one of his travels, and nobody knows how he died. There are a few who were persecuted not the mass persecutions as alleged by Christains. “Christians were persecuted by local authorities on a sporadic and ad-hoc basis, often more according to the whims of the local community than to the opinion of imperial authority.”Wikipedia. And most texts available are from Christian sources only. You might also have noticed that torture is a legal and valid form of questioning in all of ancient world and even in present America. It is a pity that yo do not read history as it is but only through your skewed perceptions.
                Claire: The reason why Christians were worshiping in private and hiding was BECAUSE They were being persecuted.
                MeThe initial Christians couldn’t be differentiated from Jews so why should they hide, from whom?
                Claire: What I believed happened was that perhaps perhaps Sulpicius was so offended by what Tacitus wrote, that he altered it to make it look like an "i".   Josephus' works was subject to that, too.
                MeSo you agree that it is a doctored work that is available. Then please note that Tacitus was quoting the Christians and there were no “Christians” at Nero’s time, nor there was a fire that burned the city and what Nero did was putting an additional tax on all jews which included christains a they were not differentiated that time. I do not say there were no Christians at the time of Tacitus.
                Claire: Well, if we have that extant original manuscript today, which I provided the picture for, then somebody else must have noticed.
                MeWhat we have is only the doctored one by sulpius, and my question was why no writer has noticed that paragraph for 6 centuries before sulpius?
                Claire: Don't put the onus on me now.  You made the claim that gospels were still evolving now prove it.  Evidence suggests that the gospels were written before 70 AD.  Gnostics believed Jesus was only a spirit and not a physical being.  Then how could he have been smiling from the cross? It's sheer fiction as it has no historical basis.
                MeEvidence suggest that gospels  vary very much and the present form was formed only after the 1st century.  So if mark (AD 70) and Thomas(AD 40) were written around the same time we have two accounts. It was paul teachings that somewhat codified and later taken by constantaine. So how can paul know something that was written only after his death? The Gnostics were merely a different Christian sect, though however much you want them to be satanic. Just like the some sect believed that jesus dead and resurrected and went to heaven they believed a different version. The historical basis is that there were various versions which failed to gain power and were later suppressed. It is youre version that only the 4 gospels were earlier and all other came after second century while most scholars agree that there were gospels written down along with mark which are not available to us now.
                “It's sheer fiction as it has no historical basis”. Yes all the available evidence says so; the whole gospels appear sheer fiction. How can anyone perform miracles or talk to non-existing satan on a mountain where the whole world can be seen. Mere fiction.
                Claire: They definitely fought, that's for sure but they shared their love for Christ.
                MeWhy fought? Peter lived with Jesus and was on peter jesus was supposed to built his church. So peter is the authority and not paul and paul should submit himself to paul.
                Why jesus called him peter, peter is not the Hebrew for “rock”,was jesus preaching in greek?
                Claire: We can only speculate how it was known that Claudius had that dream.   She could have been so inspired that she did speak to the disciples.  Anyway, that is immaterial to me.
                Me This things can happen in fiction not reality.
                Claire: Koresh followers didn't know the Holy Spirit in the first place.
                Me It means it is not holy spirit that persuade people to follow others. It is the charisma of the preacher and the story that is preached. Just like the followers of allah, smith or Koresh, early christians converted to the new belief.
                “I think pagans witnessed Paul's miracles that he did in the name of Jesus’
                Koresh’s believers might have witnessed him performing miracles?
                Paul was supposed to be a great orator.

                Claire: If Jesus had not died and taken on our sin, we could not be forgiven. 
                Me Most of the thing that you wrote above is pure nonsense, so to be politically correct I will say you wrote poetic language. Jesus cannot take our sins just as satan cannot “feed on sins”. I repeat once again, sin is an action. If sin was a “thing” like a ball or fruit jesus can take our sins and satan can feed, but unfortunately it is not. If jesus want to take responsibility, it is fine. But to take responsibility why should he do an idiotic act of “killing” himself for three days? And again what is death if you get up after three days? What is three days for a god of eternity? He took responsibility and god forgave fine, why the rest of the nonsense?

                Claire: And, of course, the resurrection proves that Jesus is the son of God.  Christianity would not be in existence if it wasn't for the resurrection.   Who would know that Jesus reconciles us with God?
                Me So just a drama then, to prove?

                Claire: No, that was when He was in hell.  You are also thinking in times of our time.  In all actuality, there is no sense of past, present and future as they happen simultaneously. 
                Me Jesus is son of god or god? If god is everywhere how was he separated from god? If there is no past and future (you are correct there), what is the point in saying jesus was separate from god for three days? If jesus is god, how god separated from god?

                Claire:  Without Satan, no one can perform sin because it wouldn't exist.
                Me Sin is a human concept. It is the price payed by every animal that lives in groups.
                Claire: It is God pardoning sin with true repentance.
                Me A barter? And what is the use of jesus there? God pardon sin if you repent, so?

                Claire:   Remember what I said about the Jewish hours
                Me So three days and night means different thing for jews and romans. According to gospel jesus died Friday evening and got resurrected before Sunday dawn. So Friday -1 night, 1 day, Saturday 2nd night, 2nd day, where is the third day and night?
                Claire: Compare that with the second-best-documented ancient historical manuscript, Homer’s Iliad, with 643 copies.[
                Me If you care to look you will notice that we have more religious textbooks than any other. Iliad is only 600 copies while gospel has 24000/ There are two reasons
                1)    Do yo know that most of the Greek texts are destroyed by later Christians? So what is the point in lamenting that we have no texts available after all the texts are destroyed?
                2)    Why religious texts are more? Social validity. Remember the Keech story, once their prophesy turned out to be false they stopped being secretive and went out in public. They were looking for social validity. Did they thought they were wrong? No they just found out reasons why they are still right and then went out to get supporters to prove that they are right – safety in numbers. Why should the Christians be any different?
                Claire: Suffering emits low frequencies which he can consume.
                Me  Any hot body emits radiation and so does brain. There is no particular “frequency” for emotions and is nonsense. And satan eating that is ..well I do not want to say.
                Claire: Come on, you ought to know that a lion is not committing a sin when killing a boar.  It is doing so to survive.
                Me What about lion killing other lions, lion cubs, hyenas and cheetahs?
                Claire: If the world is not led by Satan, why is evil prevailing over good? Why is there so much evil in government?  Most things we hear about our conspiracies.  The world is a lie.
                Me  Evil prevailing over good? Where? Evil in government ? Which government? When humans interact, there is bound to be friction. Every human has to compete against other to procreate and eat. At the same time he has to cooperate with other to do the same. It is a fine balance. But just as about anything in nature there are people who are distributed all along the bell curve. So we have introduced checks like “morals”, “sins” and “laws” for the normal functioning of the society. Politicians are no exceptions, they are just humans. And what is good for one, may not be always good for the other.
                S0 there are two eternal beings, each fighting the other? For what? They do not need money or females, then why? The second being need to feed on what the other being created.  If they are eternal and powerful, why do they need the obedience or disobediaence of mortal humans?
                Ok what do you mean by god and satan? Why are they fighting? Where do they live?

                Claire: When I asked, "How can he be Satan", I am asking why I should believe he is Satan.  In other words, how can he be Satan to me?
                Me He is not satan, it might be his character you an extrapolating, satan is a distant “representation” of your own father. You are extrapolating your family to the world. [and that is what we all humans do]
                Claire: Although he said my night terrors were not from the devil, he did not say my perceptions of the devil come from any deep-rooted experiences.  So you are being too simplistic and your are arguing from a viewpoint that makes sense to you.
                Me Didn’t I ask you to see a psychotherapist? The first job of the psychiatrist is to bring back a patient who is “suicidal” to normalcy. Psychotherapy takes time, even years. If he had told you are representing your father as satan, what would have you done? He had to consider all possibilities, and that may be the reason why he has not discussed it with you. I’m simplistic? So what you want me to do, use so many medical jargons so that you will feel that I have said something profound. I am simplistic that I want you to understand me, and that is the reason why I doubt myself that I am coming across as not as I intend.
                Claire: Some say it is the fourth dimension
                Me Dimension is regarding architecture. What you are using is a figurative word which does not convey any meaning
                Claire: If as scientist is working out a formula is he guided by his emotions in some way?
                Me The emotion is guiding him to work out the formula, the reward he gets. The formula has nothing to do with practical world.
                Claire: Only 10% of our DNA is used for building proteins.
                Me So? DNA is not affected b y frequencies and behavior. DNA is affected by Radiation with high frequencies and behavior is affected by DNA and not the other way round. Non-codons exact role is not known. Some are needed for protein synthesis though they directly don’t take part, some are just remnants of evolution.
                Claire: It is the spiritual part of the immaterial body that is said to be immortal and therefore the soul cannot reside in the brain. No amount of brain damage can alter the soul
                Me  Immaterial means it is a concept, a mere human thought, that which does not exist. And if brain does not affect soul and soul does not affect brain, the soul is not responsible for what the brain does. So a nonexistent soul, which is not affected by body, has to take all the responsibility for all what the body does?
                Claire: Why should anybody be held accountable for their actions?
                Me Then only the society works. Negative conditioning, somehow that word you cannot see. If nobody is held accountable to their action society breaks down, mere practicality.
                Claire: You can't actually believe it doesn't happen in America?
                Me In America is it common? If the husband as much as slaps his wife they get a divorce. There are a few women who cannot leave their husband as in Middle East where they will be even killed or ostracized. But how many are there in America like that? If anybody who can live an independent life, lives with a husband like that is because it satisfy their some emotions, including the moral superiority they can feel.
                Claire: Have you ever considered you may be wrong?
                MeSo many times, unlike you I do  not think I alone is right. I analyze any new information. I was a chritsian turned hindu. I do not use poetical language like you do and “bury truth within the depths of the language”, instead I define my words and study human behavior and reach rational conclusions based on premises that are non contradictory.
                Claire: Super natural is what we cannot understand just like magic is what we cannot understand.
                Me A small jointer. What we do not take time to understand. Magic is done by a human so we think it is a trick. But most we take as super natural. Just like the ancients, thunder was supernatural, god’s act, but now that we understand it no longer is supernatural but natural.
                Claire:
                I'm sorry, but I am going to take a neurologist seriously when he says NDE's are not from the brain
                Me Then get standard neurological books, not written by attention seekers. All experiences are from brain. All NDE proves is that people can get NDE in hypoxia. I cannot teach you all neurophysiology of vision, so find out yourself. Do you know there are people who can see cartoons in their blind spot?
                Claire:
                However, there are people who just enjoy seeing suffering.  They will torture an animal for no reason at all but the enjoyment of suffering.
                Me That is a called a mental defect. The pathology lies in the brain. It is by nature or nurture, but usually both contribute. He do not choose to enjoy the suffering, but unfortunately, by his birth and upbringing got a brain that enjoy it.
                Claire: I've tried to explain the context of what Jesus was saying.  Why must we take reason out of the equation? God doesn't expect me to be
                Me These are mere justifications for doing what you do.
                Claire: I 'm glad you know acknowledge the early Christians didn't resort to violence even though you said they played political games
                Me They waited till they got enough power. Once they got power they resorted to violence. If they had resorted to violence before, they would have been exterminated before they could gain power.

                1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
                  A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Diligent solicitor arguing a losing case.

  3. profile image0
    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago

    Imagine me as a feudal landlord and you my tenants.
    Or as a landlord who rented his place to bad tenants

    I'm angry at some of the things you do. So I time to time kill a good majority of you.
    You have wrecked my real estate, and ruined my investment
    and you show no remorse

    My son got fed up of this and offered himself to die in place of you.
    Now thats love lol

    And I killed him knowIngly.
    God did not kill anything other than the body of Jesus Christ. If you understand the book of john for a good example, God was IN Jesus, the christ. So God took himself to the cross and, here's the kicker, sacrificed (like they did in the OT) his body (because a body was needed both for the sacrifice and for the resurrection - there cannot be a resurrection without a body)

    If anyone of you believe that he is my son, I''ll spare you otherwise I''ll kill you all.
    So now you know how serious this whole thing is. We are talking about eternity, forever, without end and that is a very long time so in essence all decisions are FINAL, lasting an eternity and cannot be undone. Also you misunderstand how important the qualifications are for living in 'afterlife'. I guess if you were to rent a room to a bad tenant that would be okay, the person could drink milk from the carton, ruin the rug, have parties etc. and you would be okay with that? Its the same with God and his tenants in afterlife. Harmony is needed and indeed important.

    So do I love you?
    love and tenancy are not dominantly intermingled unless its family lol and then by human status even family gets kicked out

    Did I love my son?
    In this scenario, since there is no difference between God and Jesus, they are one and the same, the question, when applied to God is redundant. God created Jesus... mary was just an incubator, nothing special except that she was pious as was joseph... for the mission of doing exactly what was done, necessity is the mother of invention. God naturally, loves himself lol

    So, have these Christians got no idea what love or forgiveness is?

    We have a huge understanding of what both love and forgiveness is but mostly from God to us. From us to us or us to them, we sometimes drop the ball. Although i have read teary stories about christians forgiving and loving things that would stagger the unsaved.

    1. profile image0
      riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The good landlord who time to time killed bad tenants, creating a body(is the same as the landlord's body) just to kill, to help the bad tenants, if they believe this particular nonsense. Incidently, the bad tenants are created by the landlord himself, knowing they will be bad, that he can create and kill a body, so that the bad tenants can get eternity.
      Wonderful indeed!

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Im sorry if i misread, but did you just mimic what you prefer to think over again? Thats not learning or taking the time to learn, its really not even listening lol.
        Have many good days.

        1. profile image0
          riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I just condensed what you wrote so that neither of us is misunderstood. Did I get you wrong? I'll restate what you wrote.
          A good landlord has bad tenants.
          The tenants were invited by the landlord himself knowing that they are bad.
          The landlord killed the tenants in between as they are bad and didn't show remorse.

          Then he made a statue and destroyed it and remade it for their good( you didn't say how it will help), as he loved them though he killed them.
          After this the bad tenants, he will totally finish them though he love and forgive them.
          The good tenants will be left alone if they believe this(that was not there earlier, they were simply left alone, but there was almost no good tenants).
          About the bad tenants, who believe this and still remaining bad, and the good tenants who didn't believe this you didn't say anything.
          Correct me if I'm wrong.
          Do you mean by learning, just accepting what you said ?

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There was no need to condense what i wrote. I spelt it all out very plainly. Your condensing just turned magically into your op, which is not what i wrote.

            You miss certain key points but i will digress writing what i wrote before because that did not work the first time.

            So let me condense a nice summary for you.
            Even some of the good tenants will not enter into the kingdom of God. If even the good tenants will fall short of this goal then how much more the bad tenants. You can tell yourself what to do with what you own or make but certainly not God and not in areas that apply to the realm He lives in. As i mentioned before.. eternal life is well, eternal. lasting forever, not just a 100 yrs but a time of longer duration than our sun and if you think this is not a serious situation, try to imagine what kind of people you would like to live with forever and i bet the bar gets raised considerably.
            If you think this unfair then you probably are just a bad tenant.

            1. profile image0
              riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't speak plainly but simply used words to hide the true meaning.
              Now what you are saying is  "a king made robots then he select the best ones to be with him eternally. To select he made another robot destroyed it and then remade it."
              So where is love or forgiveness in it?
              What was the use if destroying that new robot?
              I can understand the nonsense what I don't understand is why you call such idiotic and selfish behavior love and sacrifice.

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                the room with the topic that you actually know something about is down the hall and somewhere way way over there.

                If you just want to be critical and ignore even trying to comprehend the post then make that hallway journey soon, k.

                1. profile image0
                  riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are really a preacher and is feeling threatened that your livelihood is questioned.


                  What do you expect? Seeing your arrogance and self righteousness and reading the nonsense you write people will bow to you and accept all the nonsense?
                  A child making and destroying toys do not show love, but you do not understand even the common words.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, that's pure stupidity, not love.



      That's pure evil based on pure stupidity.



      This just gets weird and makes no sense whatsoever. Your ridiculous example has now turned into a fairy tale.



      Landlords don't love their tenants.



      So, the example now has no meaning any more, it was just a facade, a fake death from a selfish, petty egomaniac.

 
working