Christ said that he came to look for the lost sheep of Israel, but his people rejected him and killed him for saying that.
He was kill for saying he is the son of God, The manifestation of events before and after his death can only be describe as supernatural in all its ramification.
The Bible made it known that the Jews are still expecting the messiah up to this day, will another messiah arise?
What is you candid view on this?
Yes, I believe Jesus is the Messiah.
No, there's no need to look for another one.
False ones may arise, and there are or will be many people ready to believe in them.
Just as you do.
Just because you believe, that does not make that one, the true one.
The persuasive book called the bible does indeed label jesus as messiah and that really all the evidence anyone need consider.
Just because you don't does not unmake jesus as messiah.
Maybe i'm the messiah and I just haven't realised my full potential?
I need some desert dwelling goat herders to chronicle my life so we can all bask in my holiness.
Just remember, you don't need to be a genius to be an atheist but you do need to be pretty stupid to be a creationist
Because the merits of Jesus as Messiah are knowable, it pays very well to be as inquisitive as one dares.
Jesus did exist, and He did claim to be God's Son.
There are so many proofs in the Bible that Jesus Christ was the son of God.
Hid birth was divine, there has never or will there ever be a conception in the manner that Christ was conceived.
The order of this wonderful birth goes thus----
1. Angelic visitation to Mary: announcing the coming of Emmanuel(God with Us)
2. Divine Conception by the Virgin Mary
3. Born in a Manger
4. Visited by the three wise men
5. Sought to be killed by Herod
6. taken into exile in Egypt
The testimony of the three wise men was the first confirmation that Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.
They are other ancient stories of the same kind. I suggest you study them. Horace of Egypt, Mithra of Sumeria, and you can try Krishna as well. Google works real good with these!
Did your googling tell you that the Mithra story so often touted is not the actual original Sumerian story, but one that was added on to after Jesus' time to make it more like His?
You guys should read the epic of Gilgamesh. It predates Mythra by a few years and is way older than Chritianity.
But it still doesn't parallel Jesus' story. I know about Gilgamesh. Jesus' story is unique, and furthermore it's true.
It's not about whether I believe it, it's about whether it's true.
Your concept of true is a mirror of your preconditioned childhood. I never believe everything I read, especially religious documents. Anyone that says they are the son of God are either insane or full of it. The egyptians claimed to be descendants of deities. What about that? Would you be inclined to believe that rubbish too?
While I thoroughly agree with your statement, it lacks one very acute notation:
No other person, loony, crackpot, mountain weed smoking, "zen am we" quantum hypnotist, life coach, jin master, etc -- in recorded human history-- made such a to have ever risen from the dead AND empowered every single man to do the same.
That, at least is note worthy.
Gigamesh. reports of a great flood, the bible reports of a great flood.
The timing and geography of these reports are not far apart .
The bible account is painstakingly more believable. The boat in gilgamesh is not functionable, the ark in the bible is totally functionable.
Clearly there was a great flood.
Yes christ is still existing and will continue to exist for eternity.
You asked, "Did Christ REALLY exist" (sic)
Even if you do not know it, the Good News is that YOU OWE Jesus Christ your very existence, out of the soil of the ground, and what is in store for you, viz.:, "being born spiritually of the Spirit" and a life in Paradise right here on earth (to be known on demand).
Christ did exist. This can be proven by Roman records and through many other sources. But that is where my belief ends. I believe he was one amongst many mesiahs. And by this I mean, think of Budha, The Hindu Baba's and Appelonius of Tyanna as mesiahs. Did they not also try to convey a message from on high?
What Roman records? What other sources?
Exactly...it never ceases to amaze me...all these experts on an imagined event that took place some 2 thousand years ago...who's only reference is a book that was cannonized some 3 hundred years later by a group of power hungry priest...yik's thats scary in a fanatical kind of way:)
@ Mischievous. There are no records from Rome that testify to the existence of the Jesus that is claimed to be the Christ. There were no historians of the day that even mentioned him. The only historian that mentions him was born much later and his records are considered by many to be fraudulent. That is Josephus. There may have been a man named Joshua that is getting the credit for being the Christ but that is a stretch too. Of course please understand that the letter J was not even used then. Y was used instead. Believe me if Rome had recorded any records about a man claimed to be the King of the Jews who was preforming miracles for God the Christians down through the century would have exploited that mega folds. It would certainly give more credence to their claims.
Listen. I no more believe he was the mesiah as I do the that God exists. I just know that people have a tendancy to canonize guru's and to me Jesus was nothing more than that. A guru.
I have total respect for your opinion, if i am to add, a guru is a wizard in whatever art the practice, they have exceptional capabilities that most times beyond the comprehension of their times.
A typical example was sir Isaac Newton discovery of the law of Gravity, though the law has always been there regarding the tendency of every object that goes up to come down, the problem was the lack of scientific proof to ascertain this fact.
Science keep on adding new updates in its archives as new discoveries are made. But Religion is a spiritual science and can never be explain by Physical Science no matter how had you try.
Jesus is not just a guru, he is more than a Guru dude.
To you he was more than a guru. To me he was a guru. By guru, I mean spiritual guide. This is the truth as I see it. What is true for you, may not be true for me, but I still see the beauty of both sides of the idea. As long as your faith is pure, it is a beautiful thing.
But if you have faith in the wrong thing, the beautiful thing will literally be the death of you, if not here then in the next world.
Which is why "What is true for you, may not be true for me" can be thought of as a lovely sentiment, but it is wrong.
And what makes you right and him wrong? The truth is, except for on a personal level, you don't know for sure.
One might say that Islam's Allah is the only true God and everyone else is completely wrong.
No one knows for sure and won't know until they are dead.
"And what makes you right and him wrong?" Ah, now there's a question truly worth asking!
I give my testimony, that I have heard from God and have met Jesus. You can ask for more details (I will give them,) or dismiss me (as many do.) But if you truly want to know, then you need to ask.
When we are all dead, we will all know. But if you know the wrong thing in this life, it will mean the next one will be miserable. And you can know for sure before then.
And as I said before. Your experiences are on a personal level. Not everyone has the same experiences.
If the believer is right, which believer is right? And if one who is a believer has faith in the wrong God then they will suffer the same fate as the non-believer.
If the non-believer is right, then there are many believers who arn't living this very short time we are given to it's fullest. So many are worried about death and dying that they are failing to live.
I can see why you would deny and laugh at reality.
Beautiful, that's why everything about God is shrouded in secrecy.
You base your replies on Jesus being the only way to God. This is wrong in my eyes. To me Jesus carried a message, but that is all. This is how I feel and probably many others feel the same way.
Yes, many do feel that way. But the message He specifically carried is that He is the only Way. That was His claim for Himself, not my interpretation.
well you don't seem to know the message that Jesus carried then do you?
Looks to me like you picked and chose what parts you decided to know and left the rest out... Is there any other practice or study in the world that this can be done in?
and if you like to take comfort in numbers, numbers can often be a sign of falseness as well as truth. Jesus had few followers, the pharisees had all of Isreael. Jesus had 12 disciples. Roman catholics have 3,000 priest (number is just a guess for example sake) So if you are going to pick a belief because the numbers are large. Remember
Many are called but few are chosen
faith is not something you have...it is something you live...
you are not far from the truth, Great.
"his records are considered by many to be fraudulent"
Who? It's easy to make the claim. Back it up.
Are Pliny and Tacitus also thought to be fraudulent?
And what's with you and the letter J? What does that even prove? That in Hebrew it was pronounced Yeshua? Like we don't already know that?
Just Google Josephus and read for yourself I am not posting any proofs because its a waste of my time. People can read what I write and like or dislike it that's their choice. There are plenty of people who do not know about the J not being used until after the 1500's I post that for them. I'm glad you know about it.
The point about the J's is that it's completely beside the point.
I've read about Josephus. The majority of what he wrote goes unquestioned by any serious scholar. Even Christian scholars agree that he wouldn't have written the superlatives attributed to him when writing about Jesus, but that he did mention Jesus.
Nor have you ever dealth with Pliny or Tacitus.
If you don't post the serious, believable proofs that you have, then you're wasting everybody's time.
Pliny and Tacitus, as well as Josephus, wrote about Pagan gods as well. Does this validate those gods as being real as well? Mythology is being supported by historical writers...
I think you've missed my point.
People keep saying there is no proof that Jesus ever existed. There is. I'm not using these men as proof that Jesus is God.
I was simply saying, If what those men wrote is proof of one person existing, then wouldn't it be safe to assume the others existed as well.
Jesus existed because it is documented by certian historical writers, and these same writers also documented other figures as well so they must have existed at one point in time also.
Divinity excluded from the equation.
Which reputable historical writers documented the existence of Jesus?
None that I am aware of. They documented the belief of the "Christians". That is the only reference that I have found that names Jesus in documents other than the Bible.
Note: My comment about Jesus being documented was in rebuttal to Historical writers being used as proof of Jesus, but not as proof of other figures such as Zeus, Hermes or pick a Pagan god.
Zues, Hermes, Jove, didn't stand the test of time. Although you'll find the odd priest here or there, it became impossible to find anyone who really believed in them by the 2nd century, unlike Jesus.
Okay, Herodotus pointed out that Hercules stories didn't really happen. Who pointed out that Jesus didn't really do all the things claimed of Him in the Gospels? They were all written when there would still be plenty of people around familiar with the people and places named. Where are the refutations?
There are many Pagan followers that still very much believe in Zeus, Hermes and various other Gods and Goddess.
As for the rest of your argument about refuting Jesus, if you won't listen to the many arguments prior to this debate and the evidence presented in those, then there is nothing that I can say or show you that you would take as proof.
The fact that historians documented about what they wrote about certainly means they existed. Does anyone doubt that jesus is the cause for christianity. Did Josephus say christianity did not exist. Lets put two and two together and come to the right conclusion okay
Yes i think it does validate other gods existing.. Do you disagree that those other gods existed... IF you do not then you have to agree that christianity existed and believe all what they wrote about it.
I have never stated which, If any higher authority, I believe in. As I believe that type of thing is my own personal beliefs and that is where it stays.
I was simply pointing out that if one uses a source to valid their argument of one God, those same sources can be used to valid the argument of other Gods as well.
And so we have concreted that since those other sources mention that both gods and their ways exist, both gods and their ways exist.
We should not forget the documentation of nero blaming the burning of rome on those christians. So obviously christianity existed. It is not a far stretch from that to realize that jesus was at the forefront of the movement, hence jesus existed.
That debate should finally be over.
Entirely untrue. Obviously, you have not read those other serious scholars.
Perhaps, but other serious scholars most certainly have.
those other serious scholars
he doesn't know any. He'd have to research it to answer that.
@ Chris, I am not on here to convince any one that I am right. I am here to post ideas nothing more than that. Evidently you have a need to be correct so you post your proofs.
I do not see the profit in posting what someone should study for them self. I am glad that you study!
This explains a lot.
If you're posting, it's because you believe you're right.
It's not me who needs to be correct. It's God. And we had all better be correct about Him.
There is no way to be correct about "God"even in Christianity there are thousand of differing believes. Who are you going to believe? Don't say "Oh I believe the Bible" because everyone says that. There is a truth to be found but it has not shown itself in my life yet. I believe we are Created but not by the "God of the Bible" In my opinion I can not see how we or any species could have come from a primordial goo.
Is there something specific in regards to all life evolving from a "primordial goo" that you don't agree or are unsure?
Aside from the fact that the accepted combinations of chemicals thought to start life actually don't, nothing.
In other words, it's purely theory, unreplicatable, but fiercely believed in as absolute truth. Gee, nothing at all like faith, eh?
LOL! The absoluteness of your claim is rivaled only by it's dishonesty.
Believers are unable to grasp beyond the concept of believing and can only come to terms with those who think and understand as some form of belief in an absolute truth.
While embracing their own beliefs as absolute truth, any other beliefs that can't be reconciled with their truth must be denied giving no honest, moral or ethical considerations in its conveyance.
Well, at least you do continue to prove what I said about you as true. Unwavering-ness counts for something.
Of course, If anyone is unable to grasp beyond their basic belief, it is definitely you.
But then, you're never more adamant then when you accuse somebody of something you're guilty of yourself.
Thats not a reply troubled
the man gave indication as to why as per your "call out" and now you are obligated to give evidence why you believe what you believe.
Cmon big man... show some guts
for life to form in primordial goo it is completely improbable. I am sure you are thinking of a one celled organism, which has amino acids, rna and dna and need to be combined together in specific order and that these events are not stirred up in just some pothole with a bit of sunlight, sunlight actually has nothing to do with it, because in order for sunlight to be effective the life you talk of, which by scientific definition: needs to store energy, replicate, grow and metabolize nutrients - none of which is possible until all the pieces are put together properly. You probably want to mention millers experiment but that will not aid you as he used the wrong atmosphere.
Since you know all about this sort of stuff how about you tell the class on which 3 points darwinism fails at?
Coming from someone who doesn't know a thing about biology or evolution and is in direct contradiction to those who do know, I certainly wouldn't take your claim as being valid or credible by any stretch of logic or reason.
Yes, thank you for your lack of knowledge and understanding.
This might come as a shock to you
but do you know there are books out there on this subject and others too.
If you are going to discredit me because i am not a scientist than just know that even you too can go to the library and find (with some help) i am sure, a variety of things called books. But if you must know some of those other scholars have provided the research and received doctorates and other signia of intelligence.
You really can be smarter, just have faith in yourself... umm.. just believe... um... just have confidence.. yah thats what you can do.
"Don't say "Oh I believe the Bible" because everyone says that." That's not true, and that's a cop-out on your part.
My guess is that you never actually met Jesus. This would hardly make you unique, but it's still too bad.
I checked out that claim of fraudulence. It's exactly as I said, most historians, whatever their bias, disclaim the superlatives attributed to Josephus in his statement about Jesus. But not the rest of it. The only people who really go after Josephus are on sites like godlessgeek, so they are automatically suspect. So your point is still lost. Where are going with this? And why don't you deal with Pliny or Tacitus?
I humbly submit that there is only one conclusive proof of Christ's existence, viz.: his Spirit-active and perfect death on the cross isolating his two natures "according to the Scriptures".
Thus, his humanity died; and his divinity, a.k.a., God's "life-giving Spirit", is now fully active and knowable. This is his unique distinction of being "the first and the last" born in the dead or immortal, a.k.a., "Alpha and Omega"!
Does Christ have any competition at all?
2000 Gregorian years later and the subject hasn't moved forward.
Perhaps, people need to get passed the Event itself as the incarnate, and start experiencing the PURPOSES of said Event. Else they are just mocking the Event and the Work of it, no?
This subject will never move forward. The churches like it the way it is. Moving forward and getting over the event would be cool but the church leaders need it to stay the way it is. As long as there are people believing the lie shoved down their throats by these leaders it will be as they wish, the same.
What kind of churches are you talking about?
Druid dude. Truer words have never been spoken. Thanks for the support of basically what I've been saying all along. "Focus on the teachings, not the teacher".
So you think that all people in all churches are just lying? How interesting is that. How factual is that.
I am in a church because i believe that God exists and Jesus existed. So i went to every church and found a church that felt like home. I am happy to be there with brothers and sisters, all practicing and struggling and advancing all the time. Some are locked into certain ways while others are still investigating certain things. But all are locked into the core beliefs and are giving their best to follow Gods ways. There are other churches I also like but i have found the one i like best.
There were a couple of churches i did not like. All the best to them.
I see that you have a problem understanding what others write. I just reread my post and I did not say all people in all churches. Is that how you read the Bible and other books? Do you see what you want to see or can you read what is written?
I'm glad that church makes you happy. Staying away from them makes me happy. Please read more carefully before you comment on another post. You just show your bias otherwise.
There is no way people can get passed the events of this epochal icon.
He said he came to cause division and not unity, family against family, homes against homes, is there a correlation between light and darkness?
This is spirit contending with the flesh and the flesh can and will never ever be able to remotely come close to overcoming the spirit.
It will always be that way and we don't have church history to blame it on, or bad christians to blame it on. What we have to blame it on is people pointing fingers and bad mouthing in forums. Other than that, Christendom has done a lot of good and people have gone to be with the lord and being with the lord is really the whole point.
According to Matt. 16: 13-28; 17: 1-13; 26:64; 27: 50-56, the answer lies exclusively in the Spirit-based authentication of the following CREDENTIALS of Jesus Christ as "The Messiah, the Son of the Living God".
1. Exclusive guidance: the Holy Spirit (16:17)
2. Characteristics: absolute authority over death and life (16:18)
3. Turnkey (16:19)
4. Secrecy (16:20)
5. Litmus test: death (16:21)
6. Mandatory requirement: disciples' burden (16: 22-26)
7. LIVE connections: Moses and Elijah (!7: 1-13)
8. Imminence (26:64)
9. The real proof (27: 50-56)
The consensus by the disciples required 40 days of intensive rehabilitation (Acts 1: 1-5) prior to broadcasting their new-found faith on the day of Pentecost (Ibid, 2).
Therefore, the credentials of Jesus Christ as "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God", is a matter of the highest possible meritorious distinction as "the first- and the last-" born Son to be ever known in his death. AMEN.
(Rev. 1: 17-18)
go ye into he world and preach the good news of the kingdom:an order than must be carried out by all believers of the gospel of Christ.
Have you pray today?
Were you there when he supposedly said that he came to save the lost children of Israel? I didn't think so. What you report is the story as recorded by persons with an agenda. That agenda was to save Rome from collapsing and when Constantine made Christianity the state religion he succeeded in saving Rome.
Lets say that a man named "Easus" (there were no J's in the days of Christ) did live in the prescribed time period. Lets even say that he was killed. Do you know for sure that he said he was the son of god? As far as any miracles he preformed they would be in the supernatural if in fact he preformed them.
The "Bible" is a compilation of books that were written by men. It was declared the "Canon" of scripture when it was compiled in and about 325 C.E. It was declared to be the "Word of God" by the same men who assembled at the council of Nicea. This is also where Easus was declared to be God. To believe what it says without question is an act of extreme faith in the honesty of the men who compiled this book of 66 books. This kind of faith I do not have nor do I want.
According to these 66 books the Jews are still looking for a Messiah. The question I ask you is, "do you want to be ruled by these mad men of the middle east"? If their Messiah ever appears that is what will happen. The Jews will rule the world and you will be forced to submit to them. They are no different then the other mad men of the middle east. World domination in the name of God or Allah is their goal.
not even remotely
The canon of the NT could not be stopped. It was not a random chance happening that NT canon came to be. The OT canon was never in dispute and neither were the NT letters including the gospels. These were what the Early church was using, that is why there are so many copies - not rewrites, copies. The originals were worn out from usage, not because they sat on a shelf. Copies were sent to all the churches. Corinth got philemon, while, everyone got to read everyone elses. The letters of Paul were being used as christian documents. The gospels were never in dispute as to who wrote them. It was commonly known, matthew, mark, luke and john wrote those gospels. This canon of NT documentation created itself. The apocrypha is another story.
In order for Constantine to gain cooperation in constructing what was considered at the time to be a universal (one world) religion, He had to begin with a basic, commonly agreed upon foundation. That foundation was the O.T. as we know it today.
He then chose those letters to become what we know as the "NEW Testament" ... which caused just enough confusion, requiring personal interpretation, which leads us away from the true meaning of the original message.
Thereby fooling some of the very elect.
Didn’t have to change very much in order to create mass confusion.
Especially when this book (bible) wasn’t made available to anyone except for the most elect of the religious organization; (for almost 1000 years).
We only have to change a recipe for a cake ever so slightly , to cause it to be bitter.
The same is true concerning religious fundamentalisms.
Jesus is the Messiah as fortold in the Old testament.
even though the bible as we know it was not readily available until much later, beside the fact that this was an oral culture and that it was suspect christ would be returning soon, christian documents were not recorded until later, but as mentioned the epistles do mention the basic credos of early christianity as part of the Christlikean church group of acts chapter 2, which i call the Early Church. So there were documents as recent as 27 yrs after christs death. Buddah 1,000 yrs, Alexander the Great, 500 yrs - we have no trouble thinking those documents are acceptable but when it comes to bible we think those more recent documents are fallible. Why is that? Personal agenda?, vilification?
As to Pauls letters being incorrect. They were not. Recall Jesus went to the jews and Paul to the Gentiles; two different missions completely but the same message. Much of what Paul says can be directly aligned with OT verse. As to the church business, that was for the gentiles "as they had moses preached in all the synagogues". The church was created by God inspired by God and taught by Paul. No problem there.
It is truly faith that saves and not works for if by works then christ died in vain.
Your knowledge of history leaves a bit to be desired. Jesus' name was actually Yeshua (a variant of Joshua) and Jesus is the Greek form of that. The books telling of his life were alll written and well known by 100 AD, not 325. Anyone who actually knows anything about the Roman Empire and then reads the Bible cannot possibly conclude that the agenda of the Bible was to save the Roman Empire. And anti-Jewish rants hardly qualify as informed sourcing.
Thank you for saying somethin intelligent. People follow things as gospel truth and forget that there was history and agendas behind what they have read, as opposed to what they actually know.
That's why records are there, times and seasons come and go, but life remain and life has a record.
Error proof record is only God-kind. But the truth remains nevertheless.
Do you belief this?
HAVE NO FEAR AT ALL!
Jesus said, "My kingdom does not belong to this world"; and repeated, "No, my kingdom does not belong here". (John 18:36)
Neither Jews nor Gentiles, in their own rights, are destined for any places of power in the Kingdom of God. No way!
Druid1952, what I wrote is my personal confirmation based on the Spirit-active and timeless works of Jesus Christ which are open for verfication by anyone.
Otherwise, the Bible is a useful road map but a poor a substitute for God's self-revelation, by the Holy Spirit, in Christ's death on the cross.
@Druid1952 Jesus is the son of god because the Bible says so! Whatever the bible says is true! haha J/k, I can't understand why a person would live his or her life after a book that's impossible to know if it's accurate (it's not). It's one thing to believe in god, but to say you know there's a god AND you know which one it is, that's just to much for me.
What do you believe in? Don't you believe in anything at all
Why do we need to believe in something?
Because we're human beings. I've read many of your posts to different forums and you certainly believe in something. Just because it's not God does not make it less so.
Uh, then what exactly have I claimed to believer? You realize we are talking about faith based beliefs, right? ie. Not the physical world.
But you DO believe in the ability of science to supply all the answers, which is a faith in something that hasn't actually been proved. That is faith.
I didn't say that. If you look at science for the explanations of what is, then it is not faith. If you look to science to explain EVERYTHING, then it's faith because science hasn't explained everything, nor can it. The faith comes in believing that science can do or deliver something that it has not done.
As a believer, you claim science can't explain everything. That is your belief, it is not an understanding because no thinking was involved.
It may be extremely difficult, but trying putting beliefs aside for the time being and begin thinking about these concepts, instead.
Not so funny when you realize there is a double doctrine of science happening.
examine the single cell. Life is said to have evolved from a single celled organism, but the single cell organism is the most complicated organism we know. It contains DNA, that we are only starting to unravel.
If we even accept the idea that simple cells were much simpler at the dawn of creation as darwin states, then we still have a hugely complex single cell organism. Firstly amino acids are necessary, 20 types a minimally needed although there are 80 today. Amino acids have to be linked but only the right ones not just any old order will do there are specifics. The amino acids have a function. Now remember this is chemical evolution so there would be no outside help. Amino acids are also right and left handed. Other molecules tend to react faster with amino acids that amino acids do with each other.. i am trying to keep this brief...Peptide bonds in the correct order and placment in order to make the protein foldable in 3 dimensions. Perhaps 100 amino acids have to be put together to make one protein molecule; the first step. One protein molecule is not life. Life by definition has to process energy, store information and replicate. Now we have to bring together a collection of protein molecules - maybe 200 of them with just the right functions to get a basic living cell.
In living systems the guidance thats needed to assemble everything together comes from DNA. DNA works hand in glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of amino acids. Where did the D and RNA come from?
This is just half of what is necessary to complete a single celled organism.
And already we see that the concept of darwin has a big opponent just to prove itself.
It's funny when believers are compelled to present dishonest and false premises to the discussion as if they were common knowledge facts we all shared.
Queue false quote.
Sure, if you believe the earth is 6000 years old.
No, the Earth is very very old, older than we know.New discoveries will stun us.
The bible doesn't give or even hint to an age of the earth.
No, I understand and know science helps to explain the world around me. No faith required.
I agree, science does help explain the world around me. But you believe that science explains everything (or eventually will) and that whatever is scientifically impossible is therefore not true. You also believe that anybody who believes differently is brainwashed or delusional. If you've ever said different, I apologize but I only go by what I've read. So yes, you do believe and have faith in "scientific knowledge" as well as your own "understanding" of human behavior.
No, I understand that science can eventually explain everything.
No, I never said that.
No, I don't "believe and fave faith" in scientific knowledge.
Believers need to believe because that's what they've been taught to do their whole lives, thinking has now become a dormant option hence their entire mindset and worldview is based on belief. They cannot comprehend anything beyond that.
Well, at least you proved my point for me.
Where did everything come from? I don't mean the origin of the universe, I mean where everything came from before the Big Bang.
If you say "It's always just been there," that's a belief, not a provable fact.
If you say, "Science will figure out," that's a belief, not a provable fact.
If you try to turn the tables and insult believers (which, by the way, you said exactly what I said you'd say, so back to proving my point for me,) then that's still not proving that you're right and I'm wrong.
I agreethat thinking has become a dormant option. That's why so many atheists take at face value that believers are simply brain-dead and never bother to explore why so many people still believe, and why people like me, not raised in any faith and not believing in any God, come to be believers. They simply cannot comprehen anything beyond that.
It does not appear that way.
We don't know, that has yet to be discovered.
Notice I did not prove your point or offered any beliefs?
No, atheists don't take that at face value, it is the believers who demonstrate and exhibit brain dead characteristics.
LOL! Not only did you prove my point but you proved that I'm at least as good as you at predicting the behavior of other people!
I love you! We should take this on the road!
I totally agree and yet, as humans we all have a unique feeling of something greater than ourselve's. Whether it be the finite vastness of space or the finite reasoning in which we invision one or more persona's of whatever we choose to believe.
So in other words, scientists explain your reality for you. They write books based on things they have studied and issues they believe in, and you read them and say, I agree.
Absolutely nothing like faith.
No, scientists explain the reality WE ALL SHARE.
You have written enough posts to show well beyond a shadow of a doubt you know very little if nothing at all about science and how it works. Nor, does it appear as if you will ever take the time to understand it.
Hence, it is very dishonest of you to make those claims.
I haven't made any claims. I'm just pointing out the usual gaping holes in your arguments. I love how you try to win an argument by telling the other person they are either stupid or lying.
The simple fact is that religion has brought us education, hospitals, schools, science labs, homeless shelters and innumerable examples of truly wonderful art, literature, drama and music. Without the culture of religions, we would live in a very grey world indeed.
I think it's time you just said thank you and moved on.
It is not true that religion brought education, hospitals, schools, science labs, homeless shelters and innumerable examples of truly wonderful art, literature, drama and music.
If it was up to religion we would still be in the dark ages. Uneducated, impoverished, and enslaved to the select few that were in charge of the religions of their day.
Religions had to allow these things to go forward when confronted by the masses to do so. I.E. the reformation.
You mean, pointing out that other people like yourself will claim that I said people are stupid and lying when I never said that?
Hilarious. A monumental denial of reality.
Okay, thanks for the side splitting laughs.
Ok, you first decided that I wasn't capable of understanding gravity (like that is the Holy Grail of human comprehension), then in your last post you suggest 'dishonesty'. I think your memory is pretty hilarious.
As to my last point, in your own time love. Enjoy your world of grey laughs.
Where do you get that stuff? Who said anything about holy grails of comprehension? Try not making up so much stuff as you go along.
If the shoe fits... See above re: Holy Grail of comprehension. Is that supposed to be an honest response?
Are you drunk? I thought this was a debate. What is so hard to understand? I used a metaphor as one often does in discussion to embellish an argument.
If you really want to win an argument you have to do better than that.
Nice cheap shot, do you feel better now? Superior?
Obviously, you have no idea what a debate is. Embellishing an argument does not include offering so called 'metaphors' that had nothing to do with describing the original statement made.
I wasn't trying to "win an argument", I was pointing our your silliness and dishonesty.
So you have no point whatsoever? Only that of denying the faith of others?
You'd have to be an android to live without the guidance of belief. We all believe in something. I believe that watering the garden makes the flowers grow. Belief is the foundation of knowledge.
LOL! Just to clarify, we are referring to faith based belief, not a belief in things like gravity. Try to keep up.
I'm talking about faith-based belief. Your question was, why do we have to believe in something. We don't have to. We just do. Naturally.
And science is faith-based, like everything.
No, we don't naturally believe in something. You are full of crap Lizzieboo.
Actually, as a rule we do, but nice to see such high-minded debating skills.
I am not debating you. I don't need to. You can't change a fanatic's mind, why would I even bother trying. I personally don't care what you believe. I just think it's funny to call you out on how stupid you are.
I don't care what you believe either. You're a moron.
"You can't change a fanatic's mind"
Truer words never spake.
And when you point the finger, four point back at you.
Sunday morning sermons and summer camps are not part of "naturally believing" in something. That is called as brainwashing. As for science being faith based, gravity of earth pulls object towards it, this is fact and can be verifiable even by non-humans. Religion doesn't give you facts like that. Try proving 6 day earth creation formula with or without faith.
Science is theory-based faith.
Gravity is a theory that seems undeniable and we certainly cannot think of a better explanation, but it is nevertheless a theory which both you and I have complete faith in.
Incidentally, innumerable religious people have been responsible for great feats of science.
Science works on falsification-verification mode. It is not a faith. Theory is not religious or non-religious. Forcing theory on people as a part of faith and preaching it as a fact is what makes it religious. Gravity isn't a theory as far as earth is concerned but it is a theory as we've no proof about it when it comes to other planets. Religious people contributing to the science was part of curiosity towards nature. It has nothing to do with they being religious.
As far as I know, the only religious group to preserve scientific reasoning in the past, were the Persians and the Moores. Today we know them as Muslims and Sunees. The Catholic church didn't even begin to support scientific data until the last One hundred years or so. I feel that there is a God, but as for belief, I don't believe anything. Especially what comes from the mouths of men.
I'm pretty sure the Persians are still Persian and they live in Iran.
mischeiviousme, who do think built Oxford and Cambridge universities?
They are near 1000 years old. Have you heard of the Renaissance? Have you heard of Leonardo da Vinci? They are all founded by, if not connected to the Catholic church and are the foundations of our education.
LOL! What institutions were not affiliated or controlled by the church 1000 years ago.
Did you know the Renaissance was the "bridge" between medieval and modern thinking? That the intellectuals who sprouted from it were studying and improving the "secular" world?
Did you know da Vinci was born out of wedlock and was charged with sodomy at age 24 with three other men? And although he was sort of theist based on some of his writings, he did not uphold Christianity and often spoke against it when it came to providing empirical evidence for its claims. Just like some of us here.
Catholicism produced the Renaissance which ever way you look at it.
Da Vinci may have been homosexual. He wasn't the first, and certainly not the last, but his work, his education, his inspiration and intellectual capacity were religious in origin and intent. He may have had grievances with the church as an institution, (although that is open to debate) but his output was intensely Catholic.
Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Raphael, Shakespeare, Marco Polo ....all sprung from this movement. Amazing times, but pretty rough times too. Change brought unrest and violence
When you say "just like some of us here" do you mean you are also a secret theist, or was that a slip of the tongue?
Yes, it is unfortunate we had to endure religious mysticism for so long before finally coming to terms with thinking about things rather than just believing.
Sure, who held all the money back then? The Church. They could afford to hire artists like Leo.
:: bravo! ::
Sadly, I have been repeatedly diagnosed with the same affliction as Leo -the femme and masculine mind working together. to my benefit: less the post-canonical Church of Rome. jeje.
Unfortunate? What came prior the Renaissance was what produced the Renaissance and they certainly did not loose their religious mysticism in the process. They had reached a peak in intellectual creativity. Much deeper than we are now. Much more passionate.
What do you think has produced the world we live in today? Clever but not deep. Reactive but not reflective. Empathy driven my self-interest rather than kindness.
Yes, the indoctrinated and ignorant kept the process of mysticism going so well, we still it today.
In direct contrast to the ignorance and delusions of the religious believer previously.
Science helped us understand and achieve while religions continued to indoctrinate people who hated and suppressed science and kept much of the world ignorant. We see the results of that today.
James, sounds like you have good balance. Nobody wants too much of either masculine or feminine. You old Renaissance man, you!
What I see around me in the world is a lesser capacity for intellectual thought, a more misguided sense of purpose, a lower threshold for suffering or discomfort and a greater reliance on other people's wisdom than ever before.
People are less spiritual and also less worldly. There is greater intolerance in the world and more greed, and a veritable endemic in the west regarding our sense of entitlement.
We achieved a great deal under the influence of religion and science, both on a general and a personal level.
What can science on its own teach us about morality or virtue?
That is entirely false and only shows complete dishonesty and deception. It's very "troubling" to see believers having to resort to such low depths in order to defend their irrational beliefs.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't know the first thing about the theory of gravity, so how you can have any faith in it?
And, great feats of dishonesty and deception, too.
A perfect example of atheist fanaticism. Thank you. I particularly like the suggestion that I wouldn't understand gravity. Nice one.
Interesting new definition you have for "atheist fanaticism" - pointing out the dishonesty of believers.
You don't understand gravity. That is a fact.
When one is indoctrinated into their religion their entire lives, they assume that to be natural for everyone.
Yes, we know you know nothing about science already, no need to remind us.
To say that there is no Creator may be incorrect too. I personally believe that we have been created by someone or something. Possibly a universal consciousness to which we are all a part. I doubt that I will know this for sure while in this 3D body. However, to believe that the Bible is a final say so is as stupid as saying that Obama is the Anti-Christ. The Bible as well as other spiritual books can and do serve as history books but with limits.
If there is a creator as I think there is then it is my opinion that his creation has been hijacked by the psychopaths that are in control today. I do not think that he would give us natural desires and instincts and then tell us we can not use them. His laws are the natural laws in force in the universe and anything else should be to govern ourselves because of our propensity to do harm.
@Felixedet2000, yes I believe.
His lessons speak volumes about his motivation. He was no ordinary human giving nice platitudes. His lessons went against mortal "common sense," because he was coming from the place of creation -- where truth is known.
Only from this place can anyone perform the miracles he did and sacrifice their self so selflessly.
The Jews still look for a Messiah, but they had him and knew him not. They did not know that he would visit 2000 years before his earthly reign would begin -- the days of peace and plenty where the entire world would speak with one voice in praise of the Lord.
We had the Holocaust and that made it possible for Israel to be reborn and now the scattered Jews are being gathered (the "gathering of the exiles").
We've already had some of the signs from Revelations. Among them the great star named wormwood. Stars are nuclear furnaces. And one nuclear furnace named Chernobyl (Ukrainian for "wormwood") spread its pestilence across a third of the world as Revelation had foretold.
We also have the revelation that the Rockefellers have conspired to corrupt the family by supporting women's liberation, so that children would look to the government for guidance. And we see that they have already started to implement the "mark of the beast" -- a microchip which would control all commerce, implanted in each individual. Without this mark of the beast, none of us will be able to participate in buying and selling goods with the majority of the world. Some people, it seems, are already wearing this. Perhaps in a decade or two (or sooner) we will all be asked to wear one.
This sounded unreal -- like science fiction -- the first time I heard it, but the Rockefellers have slowly, inexorably been tightening a stranglehold on all of humanity through the offices of the most powerful nation on the planet. It sickens me that this once great nation is now pale with the parasite of such greed and power lust. Sounds almost poetic -- but a dark poetry.
I long for the return of Yehoshua-Immanuel, but don't relish the pain that will come first.
I pray for us all, and hope we can each wake up in time.
Women's liberation is a sign of the end times? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
God will see to it brother, you have good understanding of scriptures. I am really impress.
Excuse me? What about Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus? And if Jesus didn't exist, why does the Talmud say bad things about Him? Where are the first century refutations of the Gospels or Paul's writings?
It's easy to SAY "There is nothing to show he ever existed." It's just not true.
Its funny that when arguing the existence of Easus some refer to the writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Josephus has been proven to be a fraudulent work and the Talmud is a collection of historical writings of the Jewish priest. If anyone wants to use those to say Easus did live that's fine I don't really give a flip. However if Easus is who the Churches claim him to be then that is another matter all together.
If in fact Easus is the "Son of God" then he is a mixture of spiritual (alien to some) and human genetics. A Hybrid would be the correct terminology I believe. There is a major problem with this idea. It was condemned by the very God that the churches say impregnated a virgin woman.
The account given in the Bible and the book of Enoch about the fallen angels (aliens to some) speaks of a judgment on the angels that got human females pregnant. It limits the Nephillim to a life of no more than 500 years (I would love to live to be 500) and condemns their soul to wonder the earths atmosphere after death. The question this brings to my mind is this.
Why would a righteous God do the same thing that he condemned other beings for doing? I would not be remiss to call Easus a Nephillim if in fact he is who all the Christian churches claim he is. Do not forget also that Easus was begotten of the Holy Spirit. For all you folks who believe in Easus and do not believe in the HS you have a problem!
"Josephus has been proven to be a fraudulent work "
Really? By whom?The same people who say that the Gospels were written 100 years after Jesus' death?
At least you haven't proven me wrong in my initial assertion.
A righteous God would "do the same thing he condemned other beings for doing" because it was the only way to reconcile those other beings (humans) to Himself.
So far, you've been remiss in everything you've said. You use shoddy history with no sources, psuedo-science (at best), make outrageous claims and anti-Semitic statements.
"Reconcile those other beings", dude those beings can not be reconciled they are not human beings. He condemned them to wonder the earths atmosphere for ever. I have not read anything about their redemption. That is a new one for me. When you post where it is that the Nephillim will be redeemed then I shall post more material backing up what I said.
To be honest I do not really care that you disagree with me. You have the right to believe what you want. I just hope that you do your studies with a more open mind than what it appears that you have been using.
All I know is I was born in 1952 and anything before that time I cannot testify to its truthfulness.I have to take most of history at face value and believe the historians who are writing it all down. I can not do that any more so what I post on here is posted as an opinion and not fact. I believe I have even eluded to that in my posts somewhere. So please go fight with someone else I am not trying to convert you or anyone to my thoughts.
If you open your mind too far, then anyone can pour anything in.
The "other beings" I was referring to were specifically humans.
The Nephilim weren't reconciled. Jesus came to reconcile you and me to God the Father.
Get that straight, and then you have something.
The rest is simply solipsism.
The teachings of these ( Jesus, Budha and all the others we can name) Guru's was simple. Stop living in the past. Let the teachings guide you, but don't follow the teacher.
Alan Watts once had a conversation with a renowned spiritualist and this is what he said. "If God were so merciful and all knowing, then why would he impart something that would rot our brains"?
This is what that means to me. God was not responsible for the bible and only fractile measures can be scientifically and historically proven. But as for the moral lessons, I see them as nothing more than stepping stones toward rationallity.
Jesus very much commanded us to follow the Teacher. The Teacher and the Teachings are synonymous.
Alan Watts had it wrong.
You should listen to Alan Watts, he actually has recorded lectures on youtube and NPR on Wednesdays at 10am. At least liston to what he has to say. He actually used to be a Catholic priest before he took up Zen Budhism.
I was a Baptist preacher for twenty five years. I am out of all of that and I study on my own for myself. I am not interested in any other mind controlling religion but I do appreciate your input. Thanks much Cliff
He's not a spiritual leader or a teacher or preacher. He was alot like Joseph Campbell. He just looks at the psychological aspects of religion and sums them up in a way that is easy to understand. I'm not trying to force anyone though, it was just a suggestion.
A hybrid would not be the correct terminology.
Flesh is nerves, flesh, bone, synapses, ganglia, neuro transmitters, a heart that pumps blood, lungs that deal with oxygen and a conscious mind.
All this Jesus had and this made up the shell.
The shell that God inhabited.
Perhaps now this concept is easier to grasp.
Nephilim do not exist. The book of enoch is a joke of a book if you want to drag out some ludicrous doctrine about the angels. Once we eliminate the book of enoch - which was not written by enoch at all (thats lie number one from that book) - then we can learn that the bible does not teach anything about wandering spirits anywhere.
If angels can fall is not taught either but the opposite.
Nephilim is mentioned in Gen 6:4 in the NIV, ESV, NASB and other versions of the Bible. The KJV uses the word Giant in place of the word Nephilim.
It is also mentioned in Num 13:33.
It just depends on which translation of the bible one uses as to if the word Nephilim is used or the word Giant is used.
now research nephlim and you will find it does not speak of spirit beings.
I don't need to research it. I already know what it means. I never said that it meant spirit beings or anything else for that matter. I simply said that it was in fact, listed in the Bible (depending on the version).
And to your previous post...We have concreted nothing, at least not I. I do my best not to pass off things that I cannot prove as facts. As we are writing, I might make a slip of the keyboard or something I (or anyone else) writes might be taken wrong, but I do my best not to pass something as fact unless I can prove it, or at least provide enough evidence to have it considered as a possibility.
I have never claimed that Christianity didn't exist. I never claimed that Jesus did or didn't exist. But just because a Jesus existed, doesn't mean he was the Messiah or Anointed King the Jews were expecting. Jesus is accepted by Christians as being the promised Messiah.
EDIT: I decided maybe we should post what the word Nephilim means so...
According to Strong's we have:
Nephilim comes from the based word Naphal which means to Fall, Lie. And can mean the following as well: abandon (1), allot (1), allotted (2), anyone falls (1), apportioned (2), attacked (2), born (1), bring down (1), burst (1), came down (1), cast (16), cast down (5), casts (1), collapse (1), come (3), dash down (1), defect (1), defected (3), deserted (3), deserters (3), did (1), dismounted (1), divide by lot (2), divide it by lot (1), downfall (1), dropped (1), fail (1), fail* (1), failed (4), fall (130), fall down (4), fallen (55), fallen away (1), fallen down (4), falling (3), falling down (2), falls (22), falls away (1), fell (98), fell down (8), felled (1), felling (1), give birth (1), go over (1), going over (2), gone over (3), inferior (2), killed (1), knocks (1), lay (1), lay down (1), lay flat (1), lie down (1), look (1), lost (2), lying (5), making (1), perish (1), present (1), presenting (3), prostrating (1), remains (1), settled (1), surely fall (1), throw (2), topple (1), turns (1), void (1), waste away (3).
So the word Nephilim means nothing more than "The Fallen Ones". And who or what do Christians say are the Fallen Ones from Heaven? I leave that to the reader to decide...
I would only go as far as to say that Jesus' message isn't one that is of mystics of his day, nor should it be considered one. As for him being a messiah? Naw, he was just very intelligent compared to those who were actually living at the time.
Our understanding of anything that we think that we understand, is but our theory.
Some theories are more socially accepted that others.
SOooo... before we can say for certain, what is truth; I guess we have to have an election ... NOT!
I've been gone two years and its the same dumb questions being posed in the forums...there will be no Messiah, because Jesus/God/the Almighty/the Inventor of the Universe, will delete this malfunctioned society and start over again.
Np question is dump, people ask question to be better enlighten and i don;t think there is any thing wrong with doing just that.
Am I that spoiled, or you do you also see the doublespeak here?
You're reading too much into it.
The wording was a poor choice, but the truth is that unless Jesus lives in your heart, you can't go to Heaven.
The message is clear enough, it means unless you believe in Jesus, heaven is not for you simple.
If you analyze Jesus' life and the zealous proselytization by the apostles, it should be clear Jesus is the Messiah
Your definition of "analyze" must be so way different than the one in the dictionary. When Jesus actually comes under analysis, it looks very much like he never existed.
Where's your sources? Simon Greenleaf analyzed Him and concluded exactly the opposite, so who (and this is a serious question) do you cite?
The "Testimony of the Evangelists" is based on testimony, not facts or evidence.
And, the point about having sources for Jesus is moot, there are no sources other than scriptures and testimonies.
Again, not true. Pliny and Tacitus. They attest to the effect He had. The fact that they weren't fans is not at all beside the point.
Okay, the testimonies for Jesus' life were all written within 60 years of His death. Lots of people who were in these well-known places that were named, and who knew these people that were named, were around to say, "No, that didn't happen." Yet no one did. Why not?
Testimonies are all we have for history before advent of pictures. Are you as quick to dismiss the existence of Julius Caesar or Homer because all we have are testimonies? If not, then aren't you being a little selective? (The answer to that would be "yes.")
Yes but if you ask a friend to tell a story about another friend, there is going to be embellishments and so on and so forth. What of the stories told of other great prophets of the past? Do you believe them too?
Sorry, but I'm really not interested in hearing about those guys again and again and again, like some stuck record. Yes, I know you haven't researched anything beyond what you want to believe.
Flunked out of history?
You are funny!
I really do like you!
Okay, in all seriousness...
I run across a lot of guys like you in these forums, not just on Hubpages but Yahoo Answers and Youtube and other places like it. You seem pretty smart, but you don't seem engaged in the process. In other words, there is nothing of the academic rigour about your exchanges.
You start with a set of assumptions about people, the reasons why they behave the way they behave. If you're ever challenged on it, you simply act as if the person has not said anything and revert back to your previous assumption (I've read what you, specifically have written across several of these forums. Correct me if I'm wrong but the vast majority of your stuff doesn't contradict me at all.) There's no room for variation, there's no examination to see if you might be wrong, there's no admission that the other party may have possibly done the same and honestly come to a different conclusion than you have.
You make statements and claims, but again, if you're ever challenged on them you simply sneer ("Flunked out of history?") and insult ("Yes, I know you haven't researched anything beyond what you want to believe.") and proceed over and over again to be guilty of EXACTLY what you are so quick to pin on others. If you're not, no one would ever know because you're unwilling or unable to provide the proof.
You might be the nicest person in the world in real life. I would really like to think that's true, and the anonymity of the internet is just too irresistable in terms of letting debate turn into "yo mama" matches. I've been guilty of that, too. But the ATM presented in the forums is a person who insults, sneers, berates, mocks, then runs.
If you have sources, show them. I've read a lot of different people, and one thing I do know is that most of the "serious scholars" on Josephus, and the Bible as well for that matter, fall into a certain middle ground. Just because a scholar has a lot of research or an entire alphabet behind their name doesn't make them "serious."
I've got more stuff than Tacitus and Josephus. But I asked you first. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
You are different in one respect, though. Most of the people like you, when you prove that they can't dent your belief and that you're more serious than most, they run. No amount of pleading, asking, cajoling, prodding, goading or begging will get them to behave like the serious, intelligent people they claim to be. You at least stick around. You stick to your talking points as well as any politician I've ever seen, but you stick around.
That's why I like you!
It is interesting that believers are so compelled to focus on me personally and make up all kinds of stuff to appease themselves in some way. Curious behavior, nonetheless.
Seriously, it is interesting that you are so compelled to psychologize believers in general and me personally and make up all kinds of stuff to appease yourself in some way. But if the tables are turned, you get indignant.
Curious behavior, indeed.
The word of God can never be altered:It is the same yesterday, today and forever, everyone is free to believe or alter their perception the way they deem fit, but the truth can never be hidden.
And yet, the word of God has been altered time and time again. In fact, we see that the word of God has done 180 degree flip flops at times.
Like when? In fact, we know that the Bible we have is very true to the original, so source yourself dude.
Really? Which one from this extensive list do you refer, dude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_En … anslations
The bible we have today is about 95% accurate with the oldest copies that we have found so far. We have no original texts of the bible, we only have copies (copies of copies) of the originals. The oldest piece that we have to date is 4 verses from the Book of St. John (last gospel written, about 90CE) Chapter 18 dated about 125CE. And that piece was found in Egypt.
naw... chris is completely right
nice post chris
keep up the good work
More specifically, proper evaluation of Jesus Christ's death on the cross with its radical effects on people's lives proves that he is the Messiah.
As surely as life, Jesus is the son of God. What people don't get is that this is spiritual truth and not physical realities. I hope this make sense, i can explain more if you don't mind.
Definitely Jesus Christ was and is the Messiah foretold by the scriptures. All who followed and listened to Him during his 3 year campaign to convert and teach the people knew who he really was the promised Messiah. It was only those like the chief priests, the sanheddron,and the pharisees, who feared Jesus, feared him because he was exposing them for the hypocritical charlitans that they were.
To me (if Jesus was the mesiah or not) he was the first political activist. What happens when those in power get out of hand? People revolt and Jesus, like Gandhi, took the non-violent route.
Don't forget that Jesus is a man like no other man, He came for a mission and he completed same intact.
Why was there total darkness for three hrs in all the earth, from 12 noon to 3pm GMT.
It has never been that way in the history of the world, except when Joshua ask the sun to stand still and there was 24 hrs sunlight worldwide.
The body of the death rose from their grave and were seen physically in Jerusalem.
There are so many UN-explained mysteries that characterizes the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of this epochal man.
Are all this chances?
I doubt if they are.
I believe that, like Homer's Illiad, that the bible is more a work of fiction written by people that wanted to explain something they couldn't understand. I don't have any clue why some people take it litterally either. Perhaps the Catholic church is partly to blame and maybe some people are just too uneducated to tell the difference.
That, in a nutshell, is the atheist view.
God wrote the Bible through human agency. Anyone who actually knows God (and it's possible to know Him) including scientists (and other highly educated people) knows this. And that's not due to the RC, trust me.
You claim to have met God and we should trust you?
Sorry, but scientists and "other highly educated people" most likely wouldn't agree with you.
We've been through this. Plenty of good scientists are religious. How do you explain this?
You're so smart, how about you do a little research? Or is it just more comfortable for you to sneer and then not bother to actually use that brain you tout so highly?
So far, the answer has been..."YES!"
Thanks for the compliment!
I don't, I usually do a LOT of research.
I could do what you're doing by dropping in to toss a personal insult out now and again in light of intelligent discussion. Would that make you feel better?
I don't know how to impart common sense, but it seems as though people that buy into religious belief have none. This is just my view, but also if you look back, Christians have been spewing false logic and fantastic stories as long as our race can remember.
No, because that's what you're already doing. So, just keep on keeping on, I guess.
At least you keep proving me right, though.
Please point out where I have personally insulted you as opposed to laughing at your ridiculous religious beliefs?
Many scientists have been driven to God. God invites investigation and even by the scientists.
We know darwins theory of evolution is wrong. Yes wrong. Its a good assumption but in order for it to become a fact it will need to answer to three points and then a fourth. The fourth one being that common ancestry within a species is allowable, for example, we as human beings when building use common materials; wood, brick, glass etc and yet we design many different looking buildings, so therefore to find that some species of bird have traits in common just shows, common materials not common ancestry.
Darwin himself said in his book, "future fossil findings will show my theory to be true" - admitting holes in his gradual evolution theory. Well 100 yrs plus later and hundreds if not thousands of fossil finding still do not fill in the gaps in his theory. The cambrian explosion shows fossils in full form with no evidence of slow change.
As many scientists have stated, "that the darwinian evolution theory as taught in schools is broadcast as a fact, is absurd".
So if we find that you have not studied into what you believe have you not become the thing that you point your finger at? - an unstudied evolutionist.
Further we cannot invoke nature to create the universe, there must always be a point of cause in nature. To say that nature created a tree from scratch is a stretch of natures abilities that would be likened to a miracle, because nature cannot create it can only change what is already there using materials already supplied. To say that out of so many universes ONE had to support life gives us the question where did this universe making machine come from to produce so many finely tuned universes? IF we look at gravity and we change it one part in a hundred billion, we find that much of life is eradicated. IF we make gravity weaker we find the human design unable to cope.
Indeed the world we see around us is not to be heralded as some god force that is the be all and end of all of our existence but rather we should acknowledge the fine tuner of the world as our be all and end of all of our purposeful lives.
Chris, you wrote that it's possible to know God. If so, please open a new thread where we can compare notes.
The greatest of Jesus Christ's distinctions, as "the first and the last", a.k.a., "Alpha and Omega", is his demo of immortality in his death on the cross!
Religion & Aristocracy feared him.
The Sanhedrin was much like the Senate -divided into three groups. The mishna defines this as the council of seventy-one + the high priest.
Law Makers/Enforcers, Law Abiders, Lawful Liberals [or lobbyists, also mentioned as a group called Pharisees.]
Ironically, it was the lobbyists who were petrified, yet captivated at the same time. following him everywhere he went, waiting for a chance to get something on him and increase their power with the council. Did you know ,some scholars believed Mary was pushing him to apply for a seat on the council and perhaps get elected president of the Sanhedrin? Others claim her cousin, Elizabeth, was planning on the same for John. And it was not an impossibility, given the influence both men had at such a young "political" age [early 30's].
I would gather few -if any- liked anything this man was doing because it would have destroyed their grip on the people and their influence on Rome itself. It was Rome who even praised them for creating such a council and how well it kept civil order. One possible reason they feared was because anyone with extreme [presentable] intellect or from a well-to-family could assume a seat, without election. According to Josephus, and the texts, even at age eight, the boy Joshua [Y`shua] already marveled even their elite intellect/understanding of the scripts/laws and was not from a poor country town. In fact where he grew up, required knowing 3 languages, elite education, etc. [Carpentry was just as expensive then as it is now.]
Granted, Josephus was one of the most prominent writers regarding him, but most forget the good doctor and sage, Gamaliel -acting president of the Sanhedrin, who's assistant was a man named Saul of Tarsus...
Yes he does .. but he is not god's son
He is Just a messenger
GoD has no Son NO wifes He is The only one who we must worship Him ..
but that's just my opinion of course
Interesting: Can you explain the details, i am just curious.
I got your point, only that i want some more.
Hmmm. Interesting. Don't worry, brother Druid. Everyone believes as they wish. Some here believe I'm a mystic. Can't say I didn't encourage them.
Why do these people doubt the existence of one man? Seems to be an untenable position. Let's say that there were ten million people on earth at that time. We know the names of very few of them...does that mean that no one else existed? Here is another point: In the Roman empire, crucifixion was a common punishment. After the Spartacus rebellion, thousands were crucified. This was a practiced throughout the Roman empire, and yet, we have one single proof that it was ever done: A heel bone with a spike through it. Further, we accept that there was a man called Spartacus, who lived seventy five years before Jesus. As to Homer's Iliad. The Odyssey was believed to be fiction until the site at Hissalik. The Iliad is the sequel, so, it too may have basis in fact, with imagery comparable to Revelation.
There's no compelling reasons whatsoever to think he exists. It's really that simple. In fact, adding to the fable is the resurrection from the dead making his existence far more implausible.
Was the resurrection of those crucified as common a phenomena?
But, when Spartacus died, he stayed dead. And, he is not a god now.
"But, when Spartacus died, he stayed dead. And, he is not a god now."
Absolutely right (at last, we agree on something!)
The whole point of a miracle is that it didn't happen everyday.
But they do happen.
You and I both know that is entirely not true. Only one who is indoctrinated into religious fantasy and denies reality would believe such nonsense.
Dude, stop! You're killing me!
P.S. - Yes, it is entirely true. Only one who is indoctrinated into knee-jerk skepticism and anti-religious bigotry would believe such nonsense.
If we look at the supernatural events of the bible which occur from cover to cover we need understand that supernatural events do happen.
Jesus said himself he would be resurrected.
So for Christians to believe this is not laudable, it is a christian fact and quite understandable so, to the christian reality this resurrection is something that God, the maker of the universe can easily do, since so many more will likewise be resurrected in due time.
Understanding would imply thinking, not swallowing whole hook line and sinker the myths and superstitions of the bronze age.
Jesus is the Messiah can mean many things. The name Jesus means "God is our Salvation" .. or He shall save his people from their sins. It has the same meaning as Joshua. The Messiah is Christ or the "Anointed One" The bible talks about Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus and they mean two different things. So many people are claiming they believe in Jesus Christ but it means absolutely nothing according to the bible if you never show it in your actions because faith without works is dead. The prophesy of a certain generation is that "these people worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from me" -
"The bible talks about Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus and they mean two different things."
What exactly do you mean?
Probably not. He said that "these things would be soon to pass". 2,000 some odd years is not soon.
I am not redirecting. Just read, as I don't want to repeat myself.
It is ironic anyone could be so dumb as to think you can fix the past to make it fit the future.
hi everyone...when i am totally honest with mySelf...i realize...that no-one knows how we got here...no one really even knows where here is...and some of us don't even know we are here half time...and no-one knows where we are going...and what i have noticed...is that anyone who tells you that they do know...well they are going to try to sell you something next...
you can read this book or that book...it doesn't matter...you can say you know...you can say you believe this or that...oh by the way...have you ever noticed that right in the middle of be-lie-ve is a lie...
the only thing that any of us really know...is that no-one knows...what happens to our consciousness or spirit or soul or what ever you want to call it...no-one knows what happens when death occurs...
you have to be honest with yourSelf...you don't know what happen at death...other than what someone else has told you...for example...the christian's say...heaven or hell...but they really don't know this...they just say they know...just because you believe something to be true...doesn't make true...
so now we have a starting place for honest discussion...
Can we start the honest discussion right here and now?
Religion will always be a contentious issues in the affairs of men: You simply have to believe what you know nothing about, it is call faith in religion.
When you believe in what you already know, can you call that faith?
There is a void in our life and that void can only be filled with the word of God. Thank you.
i dont believe in any messiah theory...in my personal view all these theories are product of human mind ...and going by that logic messiah waiting is natural ...one may call it second coming or waiting for new one ...in end humans behave in particular manner...
The Holly Bible is not a product of human mind or imagination please: It is a book that reflect the mind and plan of God for humanity.
I promise you that you will encounter a divine encounter if you put into practice the precepts that has been laid down in the Holly Bible.
But that is not far from the truth, he said he is the way the truth and life, no one comes to the Father except by him.
that is what is said to us about what he said...no one knows whether he said that or not...it is mere what we believe he said....no body alive right now heard him say what he said....
how do you assume nobody alive... unless you mean alive back then... and that would be wrong. There is an embarrasing amount of NT documentation of the gospels and epistles, 58,000 plus documents actually, in different languages, many in greek but if we took away the greek we could still put together the NT just using the other language translations. That's how much there is out there.
Now when we find a fossil we think, oh look at this evidence, but when we find a document that pertains to the bible we think this is not evidence?
Jesus the son of Mary was the Messiah. He is and always will be a faithful servant for God. Jesus was the desired servant for God and he faithfully delivered a truthful message.
Why not simply examine the prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament? If you do this, you will find that Jesus simply does not fit in with what the OT prophets, nor the Jews themselves, perceived the Messiah to be.
The New Testament authors--particularly those attributed to Matthew--purposely misinterpreted the OT prophecies with the intent of making the fabled Jesus fit into their contexts. This is very easy to see by all of the mistakes this author made as to timing and facts. Known historians from the time reported no knowledge of many of the events Matthew claimed in his writings.
Read them for yourself and you will find this to be true. Or simply ignore facts and real history. Your choice.
This site has just a few such misinterpretations and there are plenty more if you care to look. The truth shall set you free. If you truly want to be free, that is.
is no sign of being translated from Aramaic, but rather it was originally written in Greek
We have a plethora of information about matthews gospels in greek, but was this the original? the original is long gone so we can only second guess this but notice that there are many hebrew words that are translated and if translated why translate them in a hebrew worded book? The book must have been in a different language and since it is by the plethora of information that matthews gospel has survived in greek then aramaic is a good understanding of the writing style of the original, since matthew, a jew would have known aramaic and it is stated that jesus spoke Aramaic.
Matt 1:22-23 cites Isa 7:14 as being fulfilled by Jesus being born of the virgin Mary. See The mythological birth of Jesus for an analysis of this passage.
URL not available.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
You will notice that the rest of that prophecy which pertained to isaiah is left out.. the butter and honey part, which obviously does not apply to jesus as he would already know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. So herein is honesty in that only the part of the prophecy that pertained to jesus quoted and not the whole thing. Is it stretching.. not if we allow the bible to reveal the details of jesus birth. This you may think is 'trimming to conform to a wanted fit' but it is a noticeable insight to scripture which i am sure no gentile understanding can achieve.
Luke says that they only travelled to Bethlehem because of a census (Nazareth is actually called 'their own city' in Luke 2:21-22,39
This is not true
Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, OUT of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, UNTO the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; - HE WENT TO HIS TOWN, bethlehem, where jesus was born, he happened to be in nazareth but went TO bethlehem because of the taxation
Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1... But the Hosea text is not a prophecy as it relates to the story of God
Israel pertains to all Gods people in the wider sense of not just being allotted to the jews of the exodus time but all people who come out of abraham, in this context and does allow for this to be prophetic. Also egypt is possible as the egyptians had territory extending beyond what we think egypt has nowadays, thus it is entirely possible that they came out of there.
I could go on debunking this page of sloppy interpretations but as usual i find all atheist sites narrow sighted and horribly misinformed.
What? They didn't know that the "Big Guy" LOVES semantics?
Jesus is the messiah: do you believe ?
I believe Jesus to be the Messiah; but he was not a god or son of god in literal terms; he was a messenger prophet of the Creator God.
hey paar long time man...how r u doing?....
yes, that is the simple truth and yet for many it is very hard to understand
That's because Jesus IS the Son of God and sits at the right hand of hand of God today.
All I have to say is that Jesus Is Son Of God and He is Our Saviour and there is no doubt about it.
The Bible is absolutely true and the greatest evidence regarding the accuracy of Bible is the people of Israel who formed a nation out of nothing in 1948.
The events that are happening all around the world are strictly according to the Bible and for understanding it you need to first be a Christian at heart, learn the Bible with patience and check it by yourself.
Jesus's second coming has now taken place in the form of Mirza Ghualm Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of End Times as prophesied.
No doubt Jesus was the Messiah in ancient times.
Jesus doesn't seem to fulfil the Jewish idea of a messiah, as he did not bring the kingdom of God to Earth, as he was expected to do. However, his teachings, as recorded in the Bible are worth listening to, as he was a man of peace, and offered an example to other humans.
Jesus is the messiah: do you believe ?
Sure, Jesus was the Messiah; but he was not a god or son of god.
But the kingdom is known by all , according to the teachings of major world religion, at least 2/3 of humanity has knowledge of this kingdom of God.
So the Coming of Christ was not in vain , i believe it has achieve the purpose for which Christ came.
Jesus did what needed to be done and that was to deliver God's message. But the sacrifice that God made, when the Gospel was given to the world, is that God cut off the truth coming out of the Torah. As such the Jewish Nation was cut off by God. God divorded His first love and married a new bride, who became a harlot very fast.
Jesus was the Messiah; but he was not a god or son of god.
As I read through these post here...i think a quote from J.K. is in order....
"Your God Is Not God"
"A man who believes in God can never find God. If you are open to reality, there can be no belief in reality. If you are open to the unknown, there can be no belief in it. After all, belief is a form of self-protection, and only a petty mind can believe in God. Look at the belief of the aviators during the war who said God was their companion as they were dropping bombs! So you believe in God when you kill, when you are exploiting people. You worship God and go on ruthlessly extorting money, supporting the army; yet you say you believe in mercy, compassion, kindliness. As long as belief exists, there can never be the unknown; you cannot think about the unknown, thought cannot measure it. The mind is the product of the past, it is the result of yesterday, and can such a mind be open to the unknown? It can only project an image, but that projection is not real; so your god is not God, it is an image of your own making, an image of your own gratification."
"Religion as we generally know it or acknowledge it, is a series of beliefs, of dogmas, of rituals, of superstitions, of worship of idols, of charms and gurus that will lead you to what you want as an ultimate goal. The ultimate truth is your projection, that is what you want, which will make you happy, which will give a certainty of the deathless state. So the mind caught in all this creates a religion, a religion of dogmas, of priest-craft, of superstitions and idol-worship and in that, you are caught, and the mind stagnates."
believing is like taking thinking and putting it into a box...
@Felixedet2000, yes I believe. He taught us everything we need for our rescue from the cold, hard darkness of physical reality. He taught us that these physical bodies are not important.
No new messiah will come. The same one will return. Reincarnate perhaps?
by Jesus was a hippy4 years ago
Many muslims are suprised to hear that the bible contains similar stories although they are not so similar.The bible says that adam named all the animals whereas the koran says that god taught adam all the names.The...
by Debra Allen5 weeks ago
The Bible says that all one has to do is ask for forgiveness. Now being that, do you think that Satan might have already asked God for forgiveness? Now before you rattle off scripture.....I don't...
by denden mangubat2 years ago
Threatening folks is not an act of mercy, it is an act of hatred.
by Shaul Stein7 years ago
GREETINGS UNBELIEVERS !!! I KNEW YOU WOULD COME IN HERE IN SPITE OF THE TOPIC !!! Please DO NOT post until you read all other posts, thanks. (So far this topic had 240 posts in 4 hours. Why? Because truth is a...
by Thinkaboutit777 years ago
Attention ALL unbelievers, what does God have to do in order to convince you to trust Christ and be saved from the judgment to come?What will convince you to trust God's Son as your saviour? More evidence? Miracles?...
by Melissa Barrett6 months ago
I have said many times that what you seek in the bible you shall find. Still I see the same few verses being thrown around in support of one opinion or another. I wonder why those particular verses stick...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.