Hot Button Topic
- riddle666posted 11 years ago
0Indoctrination 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.
- riddle666posted 11 years ago0
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."
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
h, 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.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.
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 :
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.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 : 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.
- brotheryochananposted 11 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 110
I highly recomomend that Christains do not read this thread!
I think is a fraud, a fake, a liar. I think he is evil. I use to think he was great but....I have considered a few things,1. He wants you to hate your mother and father. He said that if you do not hate your mother and father you will not go to heaven. -umm....excuse me...
- 105
The Trouble With Christianity
I'm not here for a fight, honestly. I am a Christian, but not a mainstream one, and certainly not a fundalmentalist. I can't imagine not being a spiritual person I love my spiritual life and only regret that I don't put more into it than I do. I have to say, that I'm not too...
- 41
I'm beginning to wonder if Christianity itself is a cult!
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that doesn't work, but people cling to it because they fear "eternal hell"...
- 201
Self-hypnosis via the Holy Spirit.
Why is this type of delusion seen as necessary by so many Christians?
- 155
Why do people insist on attacking Christianity?
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in everything the "Church" teaches, but I don't bash other religions, and frankly,...
- 31
Why are you a Christian?
I'm just interested in the answer to this question. Sometimes I think we become so defensive about what we believe (I've been following some particularly nasty threads this evening) that we stop asking questions, close our minds, and forget the big picture. Belief and faith are a part of my...