Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?
I have just seen a post by a well known Atheist on the Hubpages.
I shall keep him anonymous, out of what little respect I have for this person.
"Dear me - you Liars For Jesus don't care how many lies you tell do you? If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said. Wot eberlushun got ter do wiv abiogenesis which cannot be true becoz no one woz there to video it like wot proof u got that goddunnit becoz adam woz there n he sed so."
Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?"Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?"
Um... no.
I put out respectful, substantive comments all the time. Doesn't mean that any theists actually respond, but hey, I'm out there.
I've seen Christians post worst about athiests. But as for this guy who wrote you that personal email, I'll admit that my spelling isn't the greatest, but God did create spellcheck.
Apparently he's good enough to become hub-famous. Enough threads have been started about him.
He pisses you off and get under your skin, obviously. Since that is his intent, there IS a certain amount of intelligence involved. At least enough intelligence to completely manipulate you.
Just sayin...Yea ..like the kid who chants "I know you are " You said you are " in the school yard.
Doesnt make them intelligent-just noticed
... huh?
I'm pretty sure that was a pointless barb, but I guess I'm not intelligent enough to grasp it.
Umm...thought I was agreeing with your comment,but now Im not so sure
Wasnt meant to be a pointless barb at all more an observation of 'said' hubber who likes to speak in pre-school jargon from time to timeObviously you are much more intelligent, Eaglekiwi. You know that apostrophes are out of use in a decades time, you're well ahead there, aren't you! Spaces between commas and the next word, ha, just a waste of space you say.
What was that you said about "Pre-school jargon", I must have missed it?OOOaaa shall I stay in after school and write some lines as well
I guess you are judging me on the Queens english. England means very little to me,actually less than that.
Also, you have grabbed that post from many pages back,the response was not in reply to anything you had said how-ever.
Have a good day ole chapI'm Scottish and at the moment we're heading into a vote regarding leaving the U.K so, no, I'm not English but I do know the language that they use.
Peep peep!My Grandmother was Scottish(bless her) ,so Id better show you some respect
P.S Scotland is on her way to Independance-Congratulations
Kia KahaGood on you, you've some Scottish blood in you!!! When are you coming to visit us when we are a nation alone again?
Sorry to say, your assessment of me is wrong, in this instance.
He does not get under my skin, however, I recon I got under his a time or two.
I just find it both amazing and extremely funny, how this type of response ( see OP) is the level he now posts, on a regular basis.Yeah, you guys always think you win every argument. I can't tell you how many times I have been told that I was "destroyed" by some babble I barely even noticed.
Most of the time we just get tired of responding, so we quit out of boredom.There is a lot of that going around, "get over it".
Because all atheists think the same way? No I don't think this one atheists words are indicative of all atheists.
I agree with you ,and thank God for that
I guess his condescending attitude is seen to be clever by some,infantile by others.
Different strokes for different folks.Hi there EK..
What is your opinion on Maui... was he really gay or not?
I voted Not in the polls..
Depends on how frustrated an atheist gets. They say arguing with a Creationist is like arguing with a brick wall, only the person arguing with a brick wall makes more progress. As a former Creationist myself I have to generally agree with that idea.
This is, of course, ruling out that this particular atheist is just a bit of a jerk. Why would you want to generalize all atheists based on this one's quote?He/She might be a bit of a jerk, but Laughter Really is The Best Medicine.
In all fairness, most creationists would say the same, re arguing with a brick wall.
That's why the discussions deteriorate to this level with some.
Evolution is as much faith based as creation.
Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed.
Both sides have to take someone's word for it. (Hence the faith aspect).
I have never seen a creationist use such infantile, derogatory language as the one I quoted in the OP.So is creation.
It's the interpretation of the evidenece which differs!There is no evidence at all of a creator. That's not interpretation, it's fabrication.
There is evidence of evolution and it goes beyond fossils - we actually see it in living examples now.How did you get here? Those amino acids are clever, aren't they?
I agre that there is evidence of evolution. But why can't evolution simply be the manifestation of how God accomplished His creations? Do the two terms have to be seen as mutually exclusive?
Because, that's not what's written in scriptures.
I get where you are coming from Mark ,sounds like no brainer to me
I like your thinking.
side note: When did the word evolution come into existance I wonderThere are many who would not agree with you TM,myself included.
God made everything-period."God made everything-period." So he made Evolution? Evolution is definitely a real phenomenon, but saying God made everything the way it is now is ignoring the facts discovered by science, and if you ignore science you might as well ignore all of sciences benefits, like this computer, clean water and all other technology we use today, medicines, vaccines, etc.
I'm an evolutionist but can you tell me where the missing link is, if not then you cant prove evolution as a fact...
"Missing link" is a misnomer and is not used when discussing evolution.
"A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue."
What part of that could apply to the 'missing link' that you guys cannot find?
There is no "missing" link, it's not missing... it was found.
I got Jesus in the same place I got my used copy of Harry Potter... in the used fiction section.
Ohhh that's why I couldn't find Jesus in the Atheist section- all their books were in mint condition -never been opened
Nope. Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, creationism does. Creationism is basically a word salad that preaches concept of earth formation over a period of 6k years with proofs taken from evolution and idea of abiogenesis replaced with creator. You call that evidence, yeah right must be church approved evidence.
Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides? who controls the gravity, who controls anything?
Science cannot ,because science did not create it.
Do we need it explained in scientific terms when we see a baby being born,complete with every living organ to survive for the next 70 years.
Or is there not enough evidence proven by the works of intelligent and gifted human minds (not animals)to at least ask ourselves - Who designed us? in such a way that we are creative and amazing people?Yes. Your assumptions in all these questions expect creator but in reality, that is not the case. What you consider as beautiful sunset is just another rotation of earth, as for tides moon gravity and wind is responsible for it. When you want to skip details in every natural event, you have to make it beautiful or horrible in order to avoid stress in your subconscious mind. That's how theists maintain their sanity and assume others insane who point out the exact cause of things. No entity controls anything, it never was the case, theists have hard time assuming the fact that we as an intelligent species who manipulate a lot of natural and man-mad objects on earth are alone atleast on this planet. In order to fill the gap that this loneliness creates in mind, some people need to have creator in their life or else they're more likely to act irrational. That's how gods were created. If you think any entity controls it, prove it, don't just throw bunch of emotional assumptions to justify it.
Science is not an entity, it is our way to explain universe and modify some parts of it. Assuming science as an entity that explains or creates universe shows your inability to understand universe and science.
Yes. Sexual intercourse and 9 months of growth pretty much explains it in short. For more details you need to digg into biology, you need to digg it with help of science in order to control disease, miscarriage during pregnancy, weight gain or loss, increase in sugar and and any other variables that are necessary for healthy living for over 70 years of living.
It is funny how you ask questions and ignore the depth of explanation and yet use "intelligent gifted humans" at the end to throw the credit of formation of life on some entity. Nobody designed us, we're still evolving. Not all humans are creative and amazing, some just live their life in this world by passing the burden of unanswered questions onto creator and enjoy their time. Some take the burden of those questions and solve the problems, yet get slapped from people who do nothing creative and amazing to understand universe.I would just like to point out that you are a great writer. Keeping cool and keeping to facts is what won me over. I have been an atheist for a while now, but it was this kind of writing (and conversation) that initially ended my protestant views; it just makes more sense. Now I am a strong atheist activist. :p
(Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides?)
Instead of fantasizing about some imagined perfection in nature, I suggest you get out into nature and observe firsthand the genetically malformed human babies that are born, the millions of cats and dogs that are slaughtered daily because of overpopulation, the innocents of all species that are eaten by stronger, more cunning creatures, the evidence of life-changing collisions that have occured between planet earth and large meteors, and the history of changes on earth in atmosphere and climate that have driven entire populations into extinction.
After you have taken off the rose-colored glasses, only then come back and explain tell us about godly (read Disney-like) perfection of nature.It is all relevant to the circle of life, not fantasy at all-reality
If man had not been so greedy, driven by an accelerated appetite for progress, perhaps this planet would be healthier today.
Either way, my view of the world is fairly balanced,I just choose to celebrate the positivescould it not also all be explained by yin and yang the universe is connected on a (sub)atomic level who's to say there aren't two opposing forces holding it all together (it would explain god and lucifer and why there is lore about them in just about ever single culture ever)
oh and btw the moon's gravity is the cause of the tides....
sunsets are caused by the way light filters through the atmosphere
the stars in SPACE are big balls of exploding gasses, just an elementary school explanation of those "miracles" however believe what you will I'm not trying to change your opinion, just letting you know that there are reasons for these things, who's to say that God didn't start it all in motion and it just moved on on it's own from there, the universe works in too much harmony to not have some kind of "repair man" lol
I like your thinking and style of communication-easy to comprehend
The universe is as chaotic as our minds, we are but microscopic representations of the greater whole.
I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before but it's bloody brilliant regardless
I thought I was speeking from my own mind, but what I think, I'm pretty sure someone else thought first. Thank you though for the vote of intelligence...
Well whether it was you or not, it is a great quote, claim that one! it's one that may appear in the quotes search in the future.
Elegant simplicity, love it!Then I shall claim it. Thank you for the support...
yes I don't see the point in over complicating things that need not be over complicated, though I also would never identify myself as a christian even though I believe in a god, because in my opinion if the christian god was the actual god then he wouldn't have let the crusades happen, or any other wars in his name, I refuse to worship an entity that would allow millions of his children to die in his name, if I go to hell because of this I'll go with a tip of the hat and my middle finger high in the air all the way down.
The late comedian, Dave Allen, said Hell was where he wanted to finish up - that was where all the fun was supposed to take place!
Alan Watts mentioned 2 paintings, one of hell and one of heaven. Hell was a happening place, while in heaven, the patrons look bored. As if an eternity of bliss, was not worth the boredom. They sit on high, looking down with sour faces...
The Bob Heinlein book 'Job' has a similar theme, good read!
However, I can imagine plenty of "Hells" that could, and can, happen here on earth. I hope others can contribute to this. On second thought I will start a new Hub on the topic. This one is getting beyond the thousand posts now, and getting a bit cumbersome.
Would you care to address it?
"Word salad" ? What is that?
If anything, evolution is the real salad.
How many types of evolution are there?
Not one word covers it, does it?No! Evidence is evidence.Only if you learn to ask question of abiogenesis by not relating it with evolution vs creationism context, sure. That work is always there, unless ofcourse you play with same 6k year creationism word salad by bending it with bible just because of your faith says so.
That shows your understanding of science, it shows in all your threads so far against evolution and in general scientific query. Trust me, religious people are not aware of world salad that they spew while preaching creationism.
That's my point, and creationism has no evidence for 6k year old earth and list goes on.
People believing the "creation" evidence will believe anything, won't they!!!
Evolution isn't faith based. It makes testable and falsifiable claims. Evolution has been put through the rigor of science, it's stood the test of time even in the face of competing theories and ideas. The weight of the evidence supporting evolution, as a process, is as strong as the weight of evidence supporting Gravity.
As a former Creationist I never recall using any infantile language but I do recall the irrational scoffing, anger, ridicule and fear I felt toward Evolution. The main reason I argued against evolution wasn't because I thought it was scientifically inaccurate, it was because I felt it was taking something away from me. I didn't want to believe I was just an animal related to monkeys by a common ancestor, I wanted to believe human beings were better, that life was truly special.
Now, from an atheistic perspective, I can see that life is special even without a God or a creator being necessary. If anything it makes the existence of life even more fascinating and beautiful.Interesting that you say that. Read this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 133926.htm("Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," he says.)
Pcunix,
Above quote from the article, and it expresses the conflict that represents the basis of human conflict from the Dark Ages until now - reason can surpass emotion, but it takes effort, too much effort for most, it seems.
That is not the point; evolution or no evolution, creationism or no creationism; one should be a respecting human being to talk with reason.
(Evolution is as much faith based as creation. Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed)
aka-dj,
You have repeated this claim often, but I wonder, as proof is subjective, exactly what proof would be necessary for you to accept evolution as valid?
Or are you simply repeating a personal position that you won't allow yourself to be convinced, regardless of evidence?EXACTLY!
That's my point all along.
Evidence is evidence, the interpretation of that evidence is subjective. Conclusions are not always proof.
I don't need any proof that is a mere conclusion of another person's interpretation, which is open to falsification.
I may not know all there is to know about evolution, but I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.(I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.)
aka-dj,
So, what you are saying is that irrespective of any evidence that could be presented, you would not alter your opinion? In other words, regardless of the facts, you would not change your mind?
Does that about sum it up?Not at all!
I have not seen ANY compelling evidence!
I am open to new evidence! Sure!
My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable.
Please, bring it on.
(I am open to new evidence! Sure! My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable)
aka-dj,
O.K., as there will always be another interpretation of any evidence presented, you are saying you will never accept evolution as a valid answer because you are too openminded?
Is that about it?
Your sweeping generalization of the behavior of [all] Atheists leads me to believe that any argument I make to the contrary will fall on deaf ears.
If you notice, I was asking a question, not making a blanket statement.
Please, argue away.
That was the whole point of starting the thread.
I think they are intelligent most of the time. However, in general, I find them very arrogant and close-minded. Agnostics are more reasonable and humble.
Is that because they don't believe in and accept the lies that are being told?
I would suspect that is arrogant and close-minded to be the one who is lying as opposed to those who point out the lies as such.What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.
Claire Evans,
Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?No, they are not. I don't know if you know the origin of Allah. He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.
That's another way of saying that all gods are conceptual. Correct?
Nah, gods are not conceptual. They just reveal themselves in a certain way. I'm busy watching a lecture by someone who has made a literal translation of the Old Testament and it is way different to what the OT says. It's staggering. It was not God who spoke to Moses, but physical gods. Gods did roam the earth in physical form.
These are things that were carried down from oral tradition, so I'm sure there were all sorts of additions. Before it was written down, religion was subject to change.
The altering of the OT was just a conspiracy. I do believe there are scriptures in there inspired by God but the vast majority, no.
Has anyone played telephone? and that is just going through 10 people in 10 minutes. Not hundreds of years.
If it hadn't been written down, it would have been so different by now. Spoken traditions are pretty much done with except in aboriginal societies.
- There you go again making false statements.
So what? There are similar origins to the Christian faith, too. Do you deny them?
See my comment above. The Old Testament in its majority is a fraud.
I'm not talking about the OT, but it is interesting that you find it to be a fraud. That is hilarious.
Yes, I deny that that the origins of Judaism should have any bearing on the Christian religion, except for certain writings by prophets and the prophecies. For example, Jesus said there would be a huge punishment for those who harm children, but God in the OT slays the first born kids. Mega bipolar God.
There's a conspiracy when the Bible read literally is altered to mean something else. The whole of Genesis is a summarised version of the pagan earlier text, The Sumerian Tablets.
I'm going to give you a brief summary: God is made in the Elohim's image: Let US make man in OUR image. The literal translation and ST actually say that Moses made a pact with one of the Elohim. They were in physical form. They demanded that the Jews make temples for them and burn animals and got high on the smell because when fat substances are burnt, they assume the same molecular form of endorphins.
Think I'm talking nonsense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … re=related
This is a lecture from a man who translated 23 books of the Bible for the Vatican. He had to translate the Stalingrad Codex (the version of the Bible which all three major monotheistic religions - Cristian, Jewish and Muslim - recognize as the official Bible) from the Hebrew, word by word, literally and with no interpretation.
The Sumerian story of the origin of man:
http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/sumerian … of-humans/
I wonder why people depicted Gods in physical form when they are supposed to be mythical. What made them think they looked like the way they were depicted?I'm not talking about Judaism, either. There are religions that are centuries older than Christianity but are almost identical.
Men created gods in their own image, obviously.Oh, which religions centuries older are almost identical to Christianity?
Zoroastrianism predates Christianity, and is arguably similar to it.
Hardly. He was a prophet and Jesus is the son of God.
Zoroastrianism isn't a "he," but a body of beliefs, as Christianity is a body of beliefs. I don't know what ancient Zoroastrians believed about Zoroaster, but I do know -- firsthand -- that modern Zoroastrians consider Zoroaster as something more than a prophet, if not quite a savior.
However, if you are refuting the common claim that much/most of Christianity is a copy of earlier religions, you are correct in your refutation.Yes, I know, but I assumed you were going to compare Zoroaster to Jesus.
Much of what we know of Zoroaster is through the Pahlavi scripts.
"Thus, when used for the name of a literary genre, i.e. Pahlavi literature, the term refers to Middle Iranian (mostly Middle Persian) texts dated near or after the fall of the Sassanid empire and (with exceptions) extending to about AD 900, after which Iranian languages enter the "modern" stage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_scripts
It's interesting to me that these texts emerged 900 years after Jesus.
The Avesta is another collection of Zoroasterianism scriptures written between the 3rd century to 8th century AD.
http://ada.usal.es/pages/transmission_index
Who copied from whom?
Also, Zoroaster claimed people would be saved through good works and not because of him.Everything of what you know about Jesus is through the Bible.
So what, Plutarch was already proposing dates back to 6000BC and he was alive in the first century. And, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?
Where else do you think we would know about the life of the Jesus? In the Koran?
The point I was trying to make is often figures that are born before Jesus have their stories changed to fit Christianity when they are written after the fact.
And why should I take the opinion of a liar into consideration?
Seriously, this has been brought up many times before, where have you been?
Zoroastrianism, for one. Christianity's ideas are all based on older Pagan religions.Lol, give me the exact parallels of Zoroasterism and how it is almost identical to Jesus? Was he the son of God? Was he crucified? Was he of a virgin birth?
And, yes, the claims have been made before and I destroyed the claim. Bring up some more pagan gods and I can destroy your claims, too!Claire Evans wrote:
Lol, give me the exact parallels of Zoroasterism and how it is almost identical to Jesus? Was he the son of God? Was he crucified? Was he of a virgin birth?
And, yes, the claims have been made before and I destroyed the claim. Bring up some more pagan gods and I can destroy your claims, too!
******************************
LOL, my ribs hurt"LMAO!" Mmmmm.... isn't that an abbreviation for something rather rude? Not exactly an appropriate thing for a christian lady to say!
re: your post of a couple of days ago.
Does not the statement that Muslims are wrong not put you into the same arrogant, close-minded attitude you are assigning to some atheists?
It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know". Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs.No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam. If I just said it was wrong without doing research, then I would be arrogant. I do research on my own religion and due to evidence see that the OT is a fraud. It just simply is not true. So I reject that side to Christianity because the OT is accepted as the word of God in that religion. When I hear the pastor read out of the OT, I cringe.
It is not true that no one knows the truth about religious beliefs. God has made it simple for humanity. Jesus is the truth and the life.Like when you claimed gods walked the earth in physical form and a host of other claims you couldn't support?
??? The OT is a fraud??
I'm more inclined to accept that the Hebrew scriptures are inspired by God than the NT.Wow! Well, then you believe in a rather sick God.
(No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam)
Claire,
So the definition of "truth" is that which has been personally researched by Claire Evans?Yep Claire is right and billions of Moslems are wrong. Yeah that makes perfect sense considering that she isn't a professor of religious studies at a renowned university..... Not.
Was there ever a need for a fundamentalist christian to have humility? And we wonder how wars are started?
Are you calling me a Fundamentalist Christian? That's an insult to my intelligence. If I know the truth should I just say I don't know to avoid being called arrogant?
Wars are not started by those who love Jesus Christ.Don't take the label of Fundamentalist Christian insultingly.
If you hold certain fundamental truths in the Bible as non-negotiable, you ARE one.
Trouble is, the world has tarred everyone with the same brush as "fundamentalist religionist TERRORISTS".
THAT you are not.This is the definition of a fundamentalism:
"Christian fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundamentalism,[1] arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[2] The founders reacted against liberal theology and militantly asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists."
The important thing here is that fundies believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
There are several core beliefs, including:
The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
The last three I agree with and the miracles of Christ but so not believe in the creation story.
Fundies are also militant. Don't dare disagree with them or you'll burn in the bowels of hell. Lol
I'm glad I'm not deemed a terrorist.Amen to that.
Wars are started by politicians or those who want to mantain their power or get more power ,oh and even to expolit the resources of another country (usually one poorer ,in every sense of the word than themselves)War is and alsmost alsways has been about realistate. "I want what you have and I'll take it by force", is the general reasoning. But then there's also the issue of torture and subjugation, something the christians have done since the founding of the religion. Christianity is not the only religious body responsible for such acts, but one cannot condemn other religions for the same crimes.
I agree each man /woman one must be accountable for there actions ,but all throughout history it has suited governments for God or christians to be seen as the root cause ,when it has been men greedy for power and used whatever means necessary to get it, which seldom had anything to do with religion.
Have you ever read Dante's inferno? If that were real, the surrounding story could have been part of a political agenda. The only problem I have concerning christianity, is the closed mindedness of it. I have been part of many religions and the 3 middle eastern religions are the worst examples religious practice I know of. To say that "this is the only way" is a cruel way of teaching others about God. Not only have people been taught to fear their God, they think their's a reward for being part of the crowd.
You mean those who profess Jesus as the son of God are right and millions of Muslims are wrong. Don't make out as if I'm the only one making this claim. You don't have to be an expert in religious studies. It's isn't rocket science.
Oh, Allah could be a God. I'm definitely not disputing that. It just isn't the God they think he is. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supposed to have the same God. They don't. How can two reject Jesus as the son of God and one have Jesus as the core of their religion?
It is a fact that Allah is a moon god and moon gods are Satanic entities.All three monotheistic religions worship the same God. It is how each religion understands the nature of that God that differs. Similarly, my family see a different perspective of me to my work colleagues, and when I used to attend Church people saw yet a different view. I'm still the same single person.
As to Allah, which simpy Arabic for "God", how can you seriously believe he is a satanic entity. Satan (Christianty's other god) simply does not exist. The word satan is a Hebrew term to discribe anyone man or angel that opposes man, and this hardly fits the description of Allah.Without Jesus, it is not possible to know the nature of God. Therefore, Jews and Muslims have the wrong idea of Him. They may respond to Him with good deeds but they don't actually know Him.
Here's a little story about Allah:
The etymology is really interesting. I'm going to make a comparison between Elohim, the gods in the OT, and Allah:
Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."
Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."
According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names.”
If you have a look at Baphomet, you will see he is a bisexual entity as well as Artemis who has a penis.
Of course the crescent moon of Islam is a dead giveaway that Allah is a moon god:
Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. "
In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon.
According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names."
According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36).
"In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7)
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him.
"Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
"The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).
http://www.investigateislam.com/moonGod.htm
http://mikeblume.com/moongod.htm
Satan does exist. Jesus did refer to him. He had other names like Beelzebub and Baal. Satan means "adversary". If you read about Allah in the Koran, you will notice how absolutely mean he is.
Watch the below videos. It will illustrate what I mean clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisbOL55 … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtkU6P0J … re=relatedThank you Claire, for this very informative description. Most interesting.
Even more interesting for me is that all the ancient beliefs and understandings to do with the gods were myths and superstitions.
Compare that with religions of today: still myths and superstitions.
What has changed? Dogma and demanding of compliance certainly have not.
"God" has not suddenly become any more real. Each person, yourself included, has simply designed a god whom he/she can feel comfortable worshiping.Well ,I for one wouldnt be worshipping anything I didn't feel comfortable with?
It is not a natural thing to want to do good ( just try it) for 24 hrs.
Our human natures always look for ways to please ourselves primarily, and the flesh has the loudest voice.Is that a joke? You can't be serious.
Is that what you do? Seriously, where do you people get this garbage?
Oh yeah, the Bible.
Johnny, you are just assuming. According to ancient texts, like the Sumerian Tablets, report that gods walked the earth and that they descended the earth in space-crafts.
People think that gods and goddesses like Isis and Osiris were imaginary beings but they are still worshipped today by world leaders. They even worship Lillith. Of course, this is not evidence that they exist but I don't believe they think these gods should be worshipped without a manifestation of them. Do a black magic ritual in the name of Isis and see where that gets you.Eaglekiwi, many people don't want to worship Jesus because He "cramps their style" and demands a high moral standard of living. That makes them feel uncomfortable. It is better to renounce the Christian faith for that reason than profess to be a Christian and still display bad behaviour constantly.
More nonsense. You believers have got to be making this stuff up to feel superior about yourselves. Hilarious.
Wrong. It's sad that's what you think of non Christians. I guess that's what is taught. A high moral standard of living? A lot of Christians aren't doing it right then. You can be moral and decent and giving and loving etc. without worshiping a deity.
It's true, ATM, whether it's consciously or subconsciously. I think it is more to do with the idea of submitting their entire will to God that doesn't appeal to people. And I said "many people", not all.
You are right, autumn18. A lot of Christians are failing miserably. Why? Because they don't want to do God's will. They just want a free pass into heaven. And just to add, I am by no means perfect. Worshiping Jesus does not make one perfect.
You indeed can be a moral and decent person without worshiping a deity, but all goodness is inspired by God, atheist or not.
Please note, my comment did not apply to ALL atheists. My uncle is a New Ager. He said he would not acknowledge he was a sinner to God. Many people hate the fact that they are a subordinate to God and that God knows best. That's ego.People who won't be subordinate to God are not atheists.
Nonsense, that just shows how little you know about others who don't accept your ridiculous beliefs.
No, it isn't.Claire, Knowing that your views about God and Jesus, the Bible, Sin, etc., are the only "facts" which matter, against any other logical opinion : that is Ego.
I should say, many people hate the idea of being a subordinate to God with respect to atheists.
You are still confused. Anyone who doesn't want to be subordinate to God is not an atheist. I don't think you have a firm grasp on what atheism is.
I hate being subordinate to Sandy Claws, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Her Holiness The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Thor and a million other fictional gods.
Sheesh!
Emile R
To make myself clear, some atheists don't like the idea of being a subordinate so they don't WANT to believe in God. That is true in some cases. If some atheists had to be confronted with absolute proof of God, many still won't want to believe it. I've seen the power of denial at work with atheists AND Christians.
So if you knew God existing as 100% truth, would you like the idea of being a subordinate?***************
Your information (which you have copied from one or more sources) is wrong again.
But it's all giving me a good laughIf someone doesn't want to believe in the existence of God, they are a theist in denial. That is not the same as an atheist. It's a bit of an insult to tell someone who honestly has no reason to think God exists that they just don't want to bow. That is interpreted as you expect people to bow to your fantasies. I wouldn't expect you to bow to mine.
But, I am more than willing to serve an Almighty if proof exists...and he isn't sending people to hell willy nilly. I would never serve the standard Christian idea of a deity. Or the Muslim. Your guy's ideas of a god disgust me on too many levels.Even if that were true, it would be a very insignificant portion of non-believers. It's more along the lines of what you want to believe about them.
Again, only a very small portion of non-believers might not accept absolute proof. Of course, there isn't even a shred of evidence let along any amount of proof.
Deborah, then correct me then.
Emile, trust me, there are some atheists who will close their minds to the thought of God. An atheist can find out if God exists if they REALLY wanted to. God does not ignore a prayer. They must really want to listen.
What is it about Jesus that disgusts you? He is my God.I grant you, we've all read the quotes from those who say they will not accept the possibility, even when they have evidence. That's bs. No one would not accept the fact that God exists, with clear proof.
That's cold hearted to suggest that. Mother Teresa herself harbored doubts. So, I think your post is wishful thinking, passed off as truth. It is a harsh statement. Many would love guidance from God. What does that say to those who have truly searched and come up empty handed? They aren't good enough? You are special?
I have no doubt in my mind that your statement is a lie and I will always make this clear when I come across someone making it. You may think it sounds pious, but it is cruel and unwarranted to make such an exaggerated claim and risk making others believe they are unworthy on a spiritual level.
The evangelical Christian vision is what I find abhorrent. You guys circumvent every thing that could be of value to your self in an attempt to lord yourselves over your fellow man. I think you degrade the name of Christ while attempting to curry favor with your god. I simply think you all missed the point.For me personally, and I suspect for many others, it is not exactly the "god" or "jesus" that I am against, but the individuals that spout such egotistical, illogical nonsense.
I left the church many years ago because of the unintelligent, self-righteous, often hypocritical individuals I met within the church. My life has since then been free to explore for my self what I wish to believe or don't wish to believe, without fear of condemnation. (At least from a theoretical god; those individuals will never give up trying, but I can live with that.)
If that is ego, jonnycomelately, then it's also egotistical to say there is no God. And if I know the truth, should I just lie and say I don't?
Claire...ENOUGH ALREADY!! For crying out loud, WHAT in the name of all that is holy or unholy ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT?? What's with the MUSLIM 101 course? Who wants to know? Who gives a damn! Isn't it time for you to go to church or study your Bible or SOMETHING RELIGIOUS?? If you feel so strongly that it is your calling in life to PREACH and SAVE the world of non-believers...Get a hold of the Christian Cable Company and declare yourself a TELEVANGELIST...jump up on the stage and go get 'em Tiger! Bless your heart Oh, believer. Believe what you will...do what you choose...read what you like..worship whoever and whatever you must. AND UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING CAN AND WILL DO THE SAME. Just what is it about this SIMPLE fact, that you just do NOT get. You have proven nothing..but the fact that you can babble the SAME thing repeatedly. So can my 2 year old Grand daughter. The difference is....SHE MAKES MORE SENSE!!
Don't read my comments then. I was approached with these questions and so I answered. Therefore people give a damn. This is a religious forum and so it is natural to talk about religious matters. If I was talking about this stuff on a science forum, then it would be inappropriate.
I would also like to point out the beginning of religion.
Way way back in the Mesopotamian era, I believe, the Egyptians were living near a river. Every once in a while the river would flood and kill all of their crops. Nobody knew why the river was flooding (because science and higher thinking had not yet been understood) so they thought "hmm.. maybe there is some person controlling it. The other day i stole from my neighbor, maybe we are being punished for our bad behavior. That would explain everything!'.
A little while later they realized that the river was flooding just because nature fluctuates. Whether it be excessive rain, melting ice, whatever causes lend to the flooding of a river, just nature.
However the people loved the idea of having answers for things and working for a greater goal (being good so bad things don't happen) that they held onto the mystical creature controlling the world and passed it down to their kids.
And here we are. River controlling entity on steroids. All for the same reason. Needing answers for things and wanting to be special in our actions.On a Furher note. The only reason Christianity became more then a hidden pegan religion is because a kind decided it was interesting and killed anyone who didn't accept it. Most people will say they believe anything if their life depends on it.
Not sure i want to follow a religion based on an idea of a river flooding and that killed people who didn't follow them... I feel like they are trying too hard... so what are they not telling us. If intelligent people cant come to the conclusion on their own maybe that is telling you something.Christianity is not a pagan religion. Paganism was incorporated into it 300 years after the fact. Nowhere is Mary worship or December 25th Christian.
Sarah, the Egyptians didn't know why the river was flooding, therefore attaching it so some invisible force, yet they knew how to build the pyramids. Maybe is just appeared and they thought is was a god.
Emile,
"Many would love guidance from God. What does that say to those who have truly searched and come up empty handed? They aren't good enough? You are special?"
I cannot say what happens in the hearts of everyone. I don't know their circumstances. I just know God will reveal Himself to those who truly seek. I am not special. I just happen to be extraordinarily fortunate to know God for who is really is and that has a lot to do with circumstances.
I'll elaborate. Many people are taught the wrong thing about God. That was a lot to do with the Old Testament. Some are disgusted by it and have no desire to pray to God. Or they try but actually don't know who He really is and I think that makes some people miss the signs of God. If things don't happen their way, they think God is not listening. I have had those moments when I wanted to do things my way and not His. Many people want to mold God in the way their see fit and not accept Him for what he really is. Regarding Mother Teresa, it is perfectly natural to have doubts at times. And by having doubts do not make one a bad person. Not at all! I may sound egotistical but I feel that this is the way it is. Since circumstances dictate the opportunities we get to the truth, it is important not to judge others.
Perhaps the most egotistical of all is Jesus Himself. He displays quite ego should it not be true. He didn't deny it in order to sound humble. He said it because it was true and if He had denied it, He would have been a liar.
Also, when people look for God, it has to be a constant daily thing or else we will get side-tracked. It is also important to have guidance and many don't have that. That is why all of us should be left to God for judgement.Without proof, your statement is nothing but arrogant ego; to the average observer. Why is that? Do you think?
It seems to me that, if God exists, the complete absence of evidence is by design. The failure to validate the beliefs of any particular religion is a calculated move.
All of the posturing and all of the bold claims may be viewed as ego on both planes of existence. As I said previously. Christians are quite adept at pulling power for themselves from the scripture. They have a physical need that they insist on filling, yet the spiritual teachings are consistently left by the wayside.
I don't doubt, if God exists, he sees your efforts in the same light we do. Because, if he exists, he made the light for all of mankind to use to see.Actually, there is no complete absence of evidence. Jesus was God made into flesh. That was His way of revealing Himself to the world. Some have recognized it, others have not.
If God exists and has never revealed evidence of His existence then He cannot expect anyone to worship Him and be a theist.
How much do you want to know Jesus Christ as your saviour?I may have a head ache from banging my head against the wall here. Do you understand the definition of the word proof? Do you know what constitutes evidence? There is no proof, other than that which anyone will take on faith. There is no evidence other than what you choose to take on faith.
Believe what you will, but don't assume everyone is going to take your word for it. Don't imply that your opinion is that of a deity. You can prove little more than that you have an opinion. If God exists, if he cares what anyone believes personally, he'll act. The fact that he doesn't back your statements with his actions, speaks volumes about the validity of your opinion in his eyes; if he exists."Actually, there is no complete absence of evidence. (I believe that) Jesus was God made into flesh. (I believe that) that was His way of revealing Himself to the world. Some have recognized it, others have not."
Claire, your entire post here would be valid and I could accept it as so IF you had included the words in parentheses, as I have inserted. Your beliefs are valid for you, and I for one can accept and honour you for your own beliefs.
When you, and other christians like you, make the bold, "factual" statements as you do, thereby debasing the opinions of others, then what you are doing is egotistical.So, God was little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. He donned a "human" suit in order to fool the gullible into believing he died.
So, gods can die, Claire? How does that work?
Not one single iota. Thanks.
Emile, you didn't answer my question: How much do you want to know Jesus Christ as your saviour?
I think I did answer your question. I would never look to Christianity as a spirit guide. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the figure of Jesus. I simply learned a different lesson from the stories of his teachings. You guys all focus on the things I believe pull you away from the most important lessons.
To attempt to find God, would you pray to Jesus everyday for guidance? If not, then can you really say you are trying to find God? Try and find out if He is the Holy Spirit away from the scriptures and other people. Just take a moment by yourself and pray.
This thread has become an absolute waste of time.. So am un-following. Might see you in more sensible discussions (I hope). Thanks to all you who have been reasonable and intelligent.
johnnycomelately.....WAIT!! Hold the door!! I'm right behind you!! Adios amigos.....it's been....ah......never mind. I'll be back at the forums when sanity is back in style.
I wish more arguers would do likewise, instead of hanging around getting into emotive, irrational and childish arguments with believers.
The two groups are clearly on different pages, with often one sied not hearing the other.
One thing that separates the two attitudes is that most believers have been on the non-beliver's side of the fence, but rarely the other way around. And the ones that claim they were Christians before (un)converting, were either playing around with it, or were involved with the Christian religion. (wrong placee to be)!
I respect your leaving the way you did!Thank you both. I am still around, and still interested in the views of others, provided those views are grounded in: mutual respect; good plausible logic; deeply held, even if questionable; open to the views of others without condemning out-of-hand.
Ok. I prayed that you would stop this nonsense. We'll see how that works out.
C'mon Emile ,you remember I'm sure that God answers prayer according to HIS will
In the interests of information being available to everyone would it not be a less selfish prayer to pray that someone understand(so they can embfrace or reject),and if nothing applies move on in peace.
Doh!! I forgot. There is always that disclaimer.
No offense, but I didn't consider that a selfish idea for a prayer. Many, many would feel the benefits of an evangelist stopping the incessant droning.On the contrary ,if people understand the heart of God,they will hardly pray for something that is not in line with His will.
Disclaimer?...don't loving parents excercise a mini version of thatscenerio everytime their child asks for 'things' ro nags for 'favours'
Droning is a boring excercise indeed, I usually walk out,if the topic/sermon becomes too self absorbed or repeatitive,much like any meeting and not just a spirit filled one.God has a heart? Does it do anything more than pump blood?
Look beyond the physical TM, it will not harm you
(Actually Jesus had a physical heart like us and he was God come down) so yes
But unlike man, He has a spiritual heart ,called HolyYour fantasies never do harm me.
Oh yeah, that makes so much sense.
You mean it's full of holes?
My husband always says maybe when the kids, and anyone, asks for something. It usually works out to a no. I don't like that. I'm a yes or no person. You ask a question and I'll tell you exactly what you'll get immediately. No waffling. Got a god like that?
Well that's good that your children always know where they stand with you,for the main part I am like that too ,however I know circumstances or conditions can change which in turn means a decision may (or not) in that respect not all questions have a ready yes or no.
God is not like man, and He is the only being who stays consistant to His word.
Same today as He was yesterday.
got a god?...lol no,
But I do have His mercy and His graceIf you have the mercy and grace of a Creator, so does everyone else, IMO.
The bottom line; as far as I'm concerned, if God exists, no religion owns him. I've watched families fight over things throughout the years when the final parent passed away. The one who owned the possessions in the end. I'm watching it now with a few in my own extended family.
Religion is the same EK. I'll admit, there are a few things I adamantly want from my father's estate. They are of no value to anyone but me. Memorabilia of our relationship. Those who didn't have the bond are squabbling for the things they perceive to be of value by monetary measures. They are stealing what they can before everything is accounted for. If my father's consciousness survived he is watching. It won't change how he felt about all of us. But, I'm sad to think that he will finally understand their motivations.
That, to me, would be God. I don't fear how my motivations will be perceived nor do I think that he loves the religious any less than the rest of humanity, because if we are the product of creation we are all his children. You were all welcome to squabble over the inheritance but it means little more than jealousy and insecurity.
aka-dj, completely correct. These people come to religious forums and then act really surprised when people speak about Jesus...
That's like me getting irritated with someone talking about the Big Bang on a science forum. The best way to not avoid religious people all those to who love Christ is to go to another forum or if they don't, automatically just ignore them.Emile, It's not my fault that the thread runs out. So when I address you, know that I am addressing your last comment to me.
When I said I'd proven my case, I meant that you aren't serious about finding God and THAT is why they don't have any evidence for Him.Forget the ridiculous argument about God. Let's address a more pertinent issue.
Look at the top of the screen in the thread. You can choose threaded, or chronological. If you choose chronological you will always be able to respond to the appropriate post.Okay, I get it now. Makes my life a whole lot easier.
You ARE serious and you have no evidence for Him.
but the reasearch you read was written by people so how can you be sure they are right. the biggest arguement for religion in the end is faith which is also the biggest cop-out. look at our world and i mean really look at it. open your eyes, see the things that go on and then explain how some loving god created us.
Well, then we shouldn't believe in written works at all by your standard.
It is clear that man is a mixture of the influence of God and Satan. We are capable of good and evil. The literal translation of the OT helped me understand that. It is written that man was different before "Adam and Eve". People before Adam and Eve could have been perfect. However, Adam and Eve are considered the representation of the first genetically engineered humans made in the image of the gods who were evil.
Since we are genetically wired to do evil, only Jesus can redeem of sin because we had flawed beings could never save ourselves. That I'm sure of and the fact man is capable of good and evil. It's also interesting to note that we are actually more inclined to do evil.
"It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know". Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs."
Wow. That is really good. I have never thought of it that way. But, looking closely, science relies on refutation. Science cannot categorically refute the existance of God (an extension of the white swan thought experiment) and Religion cannot categorically refute the non-existence of God.
It really is only logical to remain agnostic...although I understand those who hold theistic or atheistic views.
Thanks!In a way, I don't agree. Although it is correct that science cannot categorically refute the existence of any given god, it certainly reveals mountains of hard evidence that would show gods are not only unnecessary for our universe to exist and function as it does, but forces us to think about the myths and superstitions that control a great part of mankind through the practice of indoctrination and exposes religions as nothing more than a vice, completely devoid of the moral and ethical properties and characteristics that make up evolved human beings.
I would submit that an agnostic worldview of "I don't know" would ignore all of that and much, much more.Science can perfectly explain that there is no god.
Evidence is only as Good as the interpretation. Just as the finger prints of the accused on the murder weapon does not prove his culpability, evidence does not prove the presence or absence of god.
The saying, there is no evidence of god, so there is no god, is as Good as saying about a concealed pit, that there is no pit as long as I fall into it.No, science can show us the true nature of 'Nature' and the universe. If any of what is revealed by science clashes in some way with religious beliefs, that is something we as humans must discern ourselves.
Science is the study of nature. Science and religion is entirely different. Briefly, science is natural and religion supernatural and science explain well, that what was considered supernatural is, in fact, natural. So science says there is no supernatural, that is no god.
No, it doesn't and you are free to link to any peer-reviewed works to substantiate your claim.
Oh! I had forgot science works on the principle of democracy.
If you care to read your own post above, it said science tell as about the true nature of "nature" and supernatural means beyond natural, that is beyond physically possible.
Well you are religious after all, then why you are denying that big bang was triggered by god? You claim you do not know what happened at t=o and before, goddunnit.Yet, another statement that shows you know very little about science.
Says you, but your claim is bunk and you haven't a shred of evidence to support it.
If you say so.
Science does not refute God, and has never made any claim to (that is not to say that scientists haven't)
I disagree that agnosticsm ignores evidence as you state. I accept this evidence as the laws of the universe - indeed I teach these laws! But this still does not prove that there is no such thing as a 'God' only that such a deity does not get involved with the day to day running of the universe.
I can give you mountains of evidence that all swans are white...until you bring up that one black swan.
The presence or absence of a God is not a question that science can currently answer, nor should it seek toThat is not what we're talking about here. The fact that swans exist and you can show them to me can only indicate I must accept the possibility of white, black or any host of colors they might exhibit, based on other species and the colors they exhibit.
And, it does not. That is for humans to discern based on a whole lot of information, scientific or otherwise.
So as it were trouble man,what's your take on all this?
Let's recap, shall we:
First Claire: (What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.)
Then, Winston: (Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?)
And again, Claire: (No they are not.)
Next question. Have you ever heard of the phrase, the pot calling the kettle black?The difference between me and ATM is that when I am not sure of something, I am willing to learn when it is proven to me. I have had people here correct me when I say things that aren't correct or wholly correct.
ATM, on the other hand, always thinks he/she is right. And if anyone disagrees with her/him, he belittles others. I don't. If ATM is honest with himself/herself, she/he will know that he/she doesn't know 100% that Jesus is not the son of God.That is entirely false, yet again. You are not willing to learn when others hold facts right in front of you.
Really? Seems more as if someone else here is claiming 100% that he is the son of God.
I wonder who that might be, eh Claire?I don't know what facts you are talking about. You claiming that all paranormal investigators are frauds don't constitute as a fact.
Yes, I am claiming 100% Jesus is the son of God. Else I'd be a liar.
I'm going to ask you this question: Are you 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God?Wow, you just don't get it.
Else?
Gods have never been shown to exist, 100%. Therefore, your premise is false.Yes, Gods have never been shown to exist because you have been lived throughout the ages and I deduced there's no evidence.
I wonder why you dodge questions a lot. I'm asking you if you are 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God.He is a typical atheist Claire. He can never admit to the possibility and when it's presented he runs. It's been days now, where is he? Very cowardly of him.
It's sad, really. Let's hope he is thinking about my question.
I'm not, it's a ridiculous question on the same level as if you asked me if I believed 100% that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole.
So you are 100% sure that Jesus is not the son of God? Yes or no. I just want clarification.
Funny comparison by Troubled. I am willing to bet he is 100% sure that Santa doesn't exist, at least I hope so...right Troubled? But he cannot be 100% sure about God's existance.
But, you are sure despite the fact you even said yourself, "no one knows"
So obviously, you therefore believe Santa Claus MUST exist if you believe God exists.
Troubled Man...are resorting to putting words into my mouth. Typical atheist attack. Tisk tisk. You almost had it right. I can be 100% of what I believe in regards to God's existence but no one can know for sure. And it works the other way around. No one can know that He isn't there. So are you ready to admit that now?
Yes, you can, just like a child can believe 100% Santa Claus exists.
I am ready to admit that as much as I am ready to admit Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, why not? Your logic would show you must believe in him.Unfortunately you always seem to miss the point Troubled. If you know that Santa is a made up figure by adults than there is no need to believe in him now is there. Wait by the chimney where he is supposed to come down and you will have your proof. But the fundimental purpose of life and how it came into existance is a far greater one than your Santa comparision. We certainly don't have billions of people believing in Santa do we? But there are billions who belive in God and have for thousands of years. If it was all fake I'm sure the novalty would have worn off by now.
But, Santa works in mysterious ways. One must have faith he will come down the chimney and we'll be asleep.
True, and it has nothing to do with Santa or your God.
Billions of children do, but when they old enough they understand or are told Santa is just their own parents. That is a ridiculous argument and it ignores every single religion in the past that has "worn off". It is also a fallacy.
Judaism is over 5000 years old. I don't think it has "worn off" But the real issue is God. He has never "worn off" and never will.
Ignorance and delusion have been around much longer than that even though many other religions preceding Judaism are long gone. Funny how you seem to ignore that.
Which god has never "worn off"? Are you Jewish?There have been several gods in my life. Like old coats, they all wore thin, or I grew out of them, they became to small.
If you don't keep growing, you shrivel up into an Old Growth Forest, where your substance might be useful fodder for new life coming along, but your own life becomes insignificant.
The "cross" as used by christians, was used as a phallic symbol, long before the crucifixion of Jesus. It had other sexual connotations, depending on which way up it was presented. ("Phallic Worship" by George Ryley Scott, Senate Press).
So? The Romans also happened to crucify people on a cross. I suspect that is where the Christian cross came from.
(I don't know if you know the origin of Allah. He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.)
Claire,
This is a mistake we humans make over and over again, more so when our bias clouds are judgment. There is no correlation shown here. The word allah simply means god, but over time metamorphasized to be a very specific god named "Allah".
Likewise, Jesus was a common name in the first century. I'm sure there were charlatans named Jesus - what does that have to do with anything?
You connect the dots, but you are using two or three different puzzle books to do so.Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah? What about it did you know understand? The etymology part or the archaeological part?
Jesus was a human being. Of course He'd share names with others.Oh, Claire, Jesus was a human being? Wow, that's a relief. I thought for a moment you were claiming he was god. Silly me!
Lol, what was Jesus? A frog? He was 100% man and 100% God, just like Eaglekiwi is saying.
Then Jesus was delusional and egotistical.
I think you have made some very valid and poignant points in your above posts!
There is no way of knowing whether he was or not. However, those who chose to place him amongst the gods in a way that he would have found abhorent..... they are the delusional, in my view.
You mean you don't think it can be known. That's the whole point of the Holy Spirit. It means we CAN know. I don't think Jesus would have found it abhorrent others placed Him above others. After all, his claim that He was the son of God got Him killed.
There are times I wonder if Christians are wilfully obtuse. Jesus rose within the structure of a religion and attempted to guide those religious people to a better understanding. It was the religious, dogmatically entrenched, who condemned him. It was the holier than thou religious who refused to think. They kept regurgitating man made rules and regulations. It was the religious who crucified him. Not the world at large. Christians crucify the spiritual every time they regurgitate the words of those who came before them. Every time they attempt to pretend they've risen above others in the eyes of a god.
I can guarantee you, if the spirit came in the flesh today, only our secular laws would save it from being crucified by the religious.Trying to write something valid here, but I am stumped for words. Thanks Emile for filling my void with your subsequent posting.
If I know anything at all, it is that nothing can be known with absolute certainty.
I'm a former Christian. I used to believe in the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but now I believe that I had deluded myself. Was I right then, and wrong now? Maybe. Was I wrong then, and right now? Maybe.I agree, Emile.
Chasuk, doubting the Holy Spirit is part of the journey in one's Christian life. The key is to persist because the devil wants nothing more than for you to abandon your faith.I say doubting the holy spirit is part of the journey in ones atheistic life, also if the devil wants me to abandon Christ, why does he punish me if I do what he wants? Wouldn't it make sense for the devil to reward people who abandon his enemy?
Why did you preface that bizarre statement with ' I agree Emile'?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"Is this the level of intelligence of Claire Evans?"
@Emile. It means I agree with your last comment.
How does the devil punish you, Daekin? The devil is not going to make non believers' lives easy. It just means you have more of a target on your back if you follow Jesus Christ.
(Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah?)
Claire,
I just commented on your comment, so, of course, I read it. And it is still in error - you are asserting correlations that do not exist other than in your own quite confused mind.Lol. What part of Allah being a pagan god before Mohammed do you not understand?
- Disagreeing is one thing, lying is another. I understand you don't know the difference.
Yes, they may be, but if they were, they should be able to show it, why are they instead compelled to lie in light of factual evidence?
It is these liars who are extremely arrogant. Funny how you believe pointing out lies is arrogant, that says a lot about you.I see you are on the same thin ice, as the Atheist in question in the OP.
It seems you aslo resort to referring to all believer as being guilty of lying.
Perhaps you need to get firmly grounded in understanding what lying is. And, furthermore, what TRUTH is. I think you have these rather blurred in you mind.
Instead of calling people liars,(of course, you are politically correct, and don't ACTUALLY call them that, just INFER it. Playing it safe, no doubt.) why not counter the argument with truth? (If you have any)?No, she doesn't infer, she implies and other people may infer from what she wrote.
For the record, I think it's silly to say that theists are generally lying about belief. However, I have known people who present a public face of belief but privately think it's nonsense. That includes at least one priest..But what about the historical writings? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Don't they report the truth? And there are things that have been written outside of the bible, by Romans, by Pagans that mention Jesus.
Really? I know of NO historical mention of your mystery man.
Any mentions I know of are long after the fact (and that includes your Bible). Contemporary writers don't mention anything like this.
Dead Sea scrolls? You do realize that these span almost 600 years on both sides of this alleged person? When were the "Jesus" parts written? Long after he supposedly existed.
Conclusion: fake, or embellished from a real person. No miracles, no resurrection. Just a made up story.firsr the Roman historians and Pagans
There are writings that are not in the bible that do describe Jesus and his Crucifiction. In fact there are many.
Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Let’s look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:
Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus’ life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers et regularly to worship Jesus.
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):
"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome)." (Life of Claudius, 25:4)
This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:
"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief." (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)
There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this very EARLY account, we know that Jesus had an immediate impact on his followers. They believed that Jesus was God enough to withstand the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on his followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
In this account, Tacitus confirms for us that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. As a matter of fact, Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:
"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."
From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus. We can conclude that Jesus was a wise and influential man who died for his beliefs. We can also conclude that his followers adopted these beliefs and lived lives that reflected them to the world in which they lived.
Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:
"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour." (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ... ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated his wounds after he was resurrected!
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm that they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faithThe Dead Sea Scrolls
. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. When the scrolls were found they contained texts of bothbiblical and secular manuscripts that dated back to before the destruction of Second Temple of Jerusalem and the death of Jesus Christ. The most incredible discovery for me, however, was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls writing of the Essens. The Essens wrote about Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian Historian Euebius, who wrote about 301 AD, believed the Essens were influenced by Christianity. There is an amazing text in the Dead Sea Scrolls that mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is called " The Crucified Messiah Scroll"
In 1991 the world was amazed to learn that there is a reference to a Messiah who suffered for the sins of man was in the scrolls. This scroll was translated by Dr. Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions of California State University. He declared " The text is of of the most far-reaching significance for those writings. For these writings are operating in the same general Messianic Framework of early Christianity".
There is a five lined scroll containing incredible information close to what the Prophet Isaiah said about his Messianic Prophecy, in which he told his people that the Messiah would suffer for the sins of his people. This scroll provides that same revelation, except it says that the Messiah would suffer before death, then ultimately return to earth to rule the nations. This scroll also identified the Messiah as The Branch Of David and wrote that he was pierced and wounded. One more thing mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the Messiah would be called The Son of God, The Most High.There is also about 100 books and more writings that were left out of the bible. I only know of a few. There are a lot of things hidden in the Vatican. So, we will probably not find out about the rest.
By the way, I am sorry for all my yaking. I am not trying shove all of this down your throat.
Michele, I am intrigued.
If there are that number of books which were left out of the bible, then why? If the object of writing the bible was to acclaim the life of a person called Jesus, the Christ, and those other books had anything relevant to the objective, why would anyone want to leave them out?
If there are lots of other things hidden in the Vatican, again, why? When governments hide things, we get suspicious. What would the Roman church be wanting to hide?
Both yours, Michele, and the posts of a few others here in this Hub, obviously have your own agenda and are trying to promote your christianity. Yes, fair enough, we who don't take on those beliefs also have our agenda....
This is fair-go in the discussion, don't you think?
All after the fact or "quoted" (and no doubt ficionalized) by later writers.
Nothing of value. Your boy is a story. A nice story, yes. But just a story.Great reply. Very informative.
No one knows how much information was lost in the fires in the libraries at Constanople and Alexandria.
We do not know what we do not know ... Ya know?Here are some facts you forgot to mention.
You also had to mention we had no idea of the exact time of Thallus and all we have is the paraphrasing by Africanus.
You also forgot to mention that Africanus is a Christian scribe and it is HE who attributed the eclipse to jesus and not Thallus. All we can infer is Thallus mentioned about an eclipse.
During the 1st century there were 58 total eclipses throughout the world. Between years 16 and 43 AD there were eleven:
28 March 24 (off southeast Africa);
1 August 26 (south central Africa);
22 July 27 (central west Pacific);
10 July 28 (Arctic Ocean);
24 November 29 (Persian Gulf);
14 November 30 (southwest Pacific);
3 November 31 (off Chile);
19 March 33 (southern Indian ocean);
9 March 34 (Indonesia);
1 July 37 (Canada);
8 April 42 (southeast Pacific).
If Thallus had lived in the 1st rather than the 2nd century, he may have noted the eclipse that was visible in the Persian Gulf in November of 29 – which doesn't fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away.
Here Pliny is quoting the Christians he arrested. Nobody denies existence of Christians at 112AD the time which this letter was written. Also please note there is no mention of Jesus.
You should also have added the word Chrestus means “the good” and not Christ.
In the first part it was “Because the Jews”, then how come Christians in the latter? Christians were called Christians only by the end of 1st century, not at the time of Nero(54-68)
You should also have added that this statement was never seen by anybody except Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century who’s contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents … tianos.pdf
How do yo know the "wise king" is jesus?
Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea, the rest are all extrapolations by Christians.
Here again he is mentioning Christians, and nobody denies Christians in 2nd centuary.Thank you for this information. I do appreicate it. I do not want to simply follow the herd. Learing more always helps me. I hope that makes sense.
Just the ones the do lie.
Not at all.
Clearly, reality is truth, which is what is presented to counter the fantasies and lies spewed.PLEASE, present some truth then.
Not many of your posts contain any such reality statements, only critical rhetoric, on what others have said.
The more I read your posts, the shallower a person you show yourself to be.I did. It's called reality. It has nothing to do with your religious fantasies.
This question is disingenuous, I hope.
There is no single atheist who represents all of us, just as there is no single representative Christian.I imagine that was an outburst due to the sheer degenerate theism that is spread on hubpages.
There are unintelligent people on both sides, but it's not like anyone needed to be told that.
Though atheists are proven to be more intelligent as an average, so I wouldn't go pretending the opposite.You do understand that the bad spelling is deliberate, to poke fun at uneducated Creationists? I'm sure you do, because any intelligent person would get the joke. The first sentence is insulting, but that does not necessarily mean the writer is unintelligent - just that he/she is angry or frustrated.
Hi Marissa.
Yes, you are right, I get it.
This was neither a one off outburst, nor an expression of frustration.
This person uses this language, grammar and tone regularly.
I was merely asking other atheists to respond for themselves. Though my question was a generalisation, it was, in fact seeking individual answers.One can be angry and frustrated and not be insulting if one wishes.
Clear lack of respect. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
cheers
They only show disrespect; they deride and ridicule; all these things hamper good reasoning to generate in their selves; this way day by day their reasoning faculty is deteritorating; nature is taking its course against them.
If they make habit of respecting others; using no foul words they may improve.So, what you're saying is that the person in question has been calling someone else on their lies and reached a point where they have to make it clear that all they are hearing from that person are lies.
The question should be, Is this indicative of where discussions with those who must lie to defend Jesus and their beliefs are occurring here?Want to know how I know pro religious people lack confidence? Every person on this thread uses the word "God" in a general since. If pro religion was so secure, they would say "Jesus" instead of "God". If it doesn't show a lack of confidence, it shows a lack of intelligence, being that one inter twines the word "God" with Jesus, while talking on the world wide web. A world that host a population of seven billion people with seventy percent not believing in Christ.
Wow!
That's enlightening.
I lack no such confidence. I know Him, in whom I believe.
I have never differentiated between God and Jesus. Jesus is the manifestation of God, in the flesh to the world.
If there is any confusion as to which god is the TRUE God, it is not in my court.
Yes, that may be, but only 16% have NO religion.
What percent of that "33%" attend church everyone Sunday?
What purpose does the answer to that serve?
Can't one be a Christian without church attendance?Does a simple check mark beside the choice "Christian" on a questionnaire make a person a Christian?
No, one can't be a Christian unless they have fully submitted to Christ. Not going to church shows a lack of Christianity to one's ideology who claims otherwise.I wrote a hub on that very topic.
The whole concept of "going to church" is wrong, anyway.
Believers ARE the church. Not the building they congregate in.
Every time I meet with fellow believers, and are there in the name of Jesus Christ, a part of church is active.
Ticking a box indeed does NOT make one a Christian.
Keith Green said "going to church doesn't make you a christian, any more than going to MacDonnalds makes you a ham,burger...Yes I think you are right,but Jesus didnt always go to church ,so then aagain you are wrong
My personal view is that too many people get hung up on a building or an ethos or a group mentality thing.
Jesus was not about traditional rituals or pompous status ,that is why when he was crucified the temple was no longer divided in two (lower court for the low people ,higher court for the priests) the temple curtains were shredded in two.
Jesus was now the High Priest and no man comes to the Father except through Him ,no longer was it to be a man or hierachy as it had been ruling over the people unjustly and at times with hypocrisy.
The gathering of other believers was encouraged for the building up of the saints.
The body of Christ is not a building ,it is a set of working beliefs found within believers ,you could just as easily be meeting and praying in a bus terminal or individual homes as in a building called a church.How do you know all of this stuff about 'Jesus'?
From reading what Jesus said and did ,and other peoples accounts of what Jesus said and did.
Plus the holy spirit (conscience) confirmation
An amazing percentage of non-believers call themselves Christians!!!
Not to mention, about 50% of non-religious are theists, none the less.
But, in any case, what's your point?I find it very difficult to imagine a non-believer calling him or herself a christian, it doesn't fit at all although the non-religious being a theist doesn't present the same problem for me. I don't believe therefore I am not a christian, voila!!!
Just for the record, atheists have the highest I.Q. levels in the world, and religious people the lowest. That is 100% researched and tested information. You can google it, yahoo it, bing it, whatever.
Next, the latest edition of National Geographic gives the results of twin studies. The information has always been there but has been politically incorrect for fear of hurting the feelings of some. Intelligence is genetic. It's not educated into you. You can buy the latest edition of National Geographic if you'd like to check that as well. You can also consult the many scientists who did the testing and the thousands of identical twins who were tested over and over again.
What is more interesting is that religiosity is inborn as well. It's an inherited trait through DNA. So people who are religious can't help themselves - anymore than atheists can help themselves.
For some reason, Mother Nature (or God) gave the same people he made non-religious more intelligence.
Can someone please explain 'God's' reasoning to me.
I'm listening.Matthew 11
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have ...Interestingly enough, when we view a believers beliefs in terms of brainwashing, we no longer can view the person as being stupid.
We also know there are varying levels of education and knowledge amongst believers which means some may simply be ignorant by many of them are most certainly not stupid.I took a CPR class the other day. A man and his wife were also there and he was so fat that no one could get their arms around him for the Heimlich. He and his wife both thought that was quite funny.
Then the instructor reminded us that you can't do CPR in bed. The big man's wife laughed and said she couldn't possibly even roll him out of bed, never mind pull him. He thought that was pretty funny too.
I told my wife about that when I came home. She asked "Are they happy?"
Yeah. They obviously were very happy.
Don't knock stupid. It has benefits.lol, I believe God granted your request in advance...
Who, way back when, was wise and intelligent?
Who, way back when, didn't "know" the world was flat and the wind originated from a sleeping god who lived in cave.
And, since way back when, we have accumulated a tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Many of those "hidden things" are no longer hidden with many of them being well understood and taken for granted in everyday life.
Those words by Jesus are becoming more and more meaningless as time passes and we learn more about our universe.
I can understand believers are probably pretty upset by that considering knowledge is evil if it ain't God knowledge.
One thing is for sure though, God has done a bang up job of hiding himself.It's called propaganda. The church fathers, the state, and everybody else who was in a controlling position had to flatter/scare the masses in order to get them to be obedient.
On the one hand, they told them if they didn't obey, the devil would get them.
On the other hand, they told them if they used their brains, they would show evidence of having no faith.
Like all the people who were too scared to tell the emperor that he had no clothes, the masses rather than actually use their brains, didn't... And, of course, if you don't use them, you lose them.
Ok, I'll bite!
Here then, in effect, you are confirming that the Atheist in question is of a higher intelligence than me (and all believers) because of their Atheism. That then justifies the rhetoric which I posted in the OP.
This would also explain the condescension, ridicule and verbal abuse coming from many Atheists.
They are, in fact of a higher order. Simply put, better than everyone else.
Thanks for clarifying that.
so you are using the comments of one person to judge atheists?
That is definitely not an intelligent answer. It is called deliberately inflaming other people's religions and instigating violence and rancor.
With some, yes, but he is not a representative of all atheists as there are a lot of people of other faiths who say things that do not sound intelligent or respectful. Shame on him for saying what he said in the manner he said it. Shame on anyone who assumes that his behavior representative of all - that is sort of thought where all kinds of prejudice originates. P.S. I am not an atheist and don't like what he said either because it was disrespectful. At the church I grew up in, there were convicted child molesters and drug users. I know these people are not representative of all Christians but it would be easy to lump them all together, if I wanted to do so. That is the challenge of intelligence, not lumping things together but taking things on a case-by-case basis.
You can't hide his identity dj, that was a kind effort though.. LOL
Well, what I'm reading has nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with frustration. I'd really like to see what that comment was a response to. Everyone is their own person, but yeah, we can get mean when we're dealing with someone that just doesn't get it. That has nothing to do with atheism and has everything to do with that individuals breaking point. For myself, when I see that logical arguments are not going to get through to you, yeah, I may ridicule you.
I guess it is a developed skill then to attack the problem ,rather than the person
Mostly I try to take the higher ground (not arrogantly) and sometimes I don't.
"God hasn't finished with me yet"Thanks for your honesty.
We'll be sure to keep that in mind when we read your future posts.
BTW, there are plenty of mentors here to teach you the finer points and techniques.
I think it's indicative as humans whether atheist or theist or whoever, with varying degrees of intelligence and maturity to answer in various tones of intelligence and maturity. It doesn't really matter what you believe you are capable of saying the most stupid and unintelligent and/or angry statements.
I suppose it also depends on your background and experience with said opposite group.In my experience, which isn't a lot, I might add; most of the conversations started about religion quickly deteriorate into petty, rude, personal cracks at each other's beliefs. Surprised me that it would be that way here, but seems there are few exceptions to the rule. There are one or two hubbers who are always even, objective and keep a cool head, thank goodness for those(Emile R). Otherwise, the "debates" usually trail off toward the lowest common denominator of the group. Again, this is my limited experience and opinion.
I don't think intelligence is indicative of anything. You can be an Atheist or a Christian and be intelligent; you can be an Atheist or a Christian and be stupid, makes little difference.
My own version of Intelligence is:
The ability to ask a question. In order to arrive at this ability, one needs to first be humble and say, "I do not know." Then have the curiosity to see if there IS something to know; open the senses to something new; have the mental agility and energy to sort things through. Finally to come up with an answer to the first question or problem.
Most of this function will come out of need. From this, it can be seen that Intelligence is not dependent on "class," social standing or financial status. Each person in his or her own environment will find the level of intelligence necessary for survival.In your opinion; is there any difference between inteligance and wisdom?
And if there is what is it?Thanks for your question Jerami. Again, these are only my own ideas on the subject of wisdom, they are of course debatable.
I see wisdom as "the ability to make sound judgment."
It is said that wisdom comes with age.... but not necessarily. Through the long experience of life one can often see a different point of view on various subjects, if they have been part of the experience. The different point of view might then lead to more appropriate solutions.
A younger/less experienced person might then look upon the elder as "wise." The wisdom here is not something to be claimed or presumed by the elder. The assessment of it being wisdom is for the other person to decide.
I have often, in men's groups, witnessed a much younger man but one who is/has been a father, with all the responsibilities and trials and errors that he has to go through, and been deeply impressed with his "wisdom." Again, MY assessment of Him, not something he would consider of himself.
So, I would see intelligence and wisdom is some ways related, but certainly not the same thing.
I have just read from the site of Steve Pavlina. "10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion."
Interesting stuff, well worth a read.
These self-obsessed threads from flat earth proponents are now becoming terminally boring.
If people are so stupid that they are unable to understand simple science and physics and are so completely unable to grasp that spirituality is a human condition, not a brick and mortar paradise room - then how is it useful for so many people to try to educate or argue with them ?If you are talking to actual "flat earthers", your audience is minuscule.
You are posting in the wrong place.
If it's directed at me, all I can say is
Sorry. My sense of humor betrays me sometimes.Yes, you do seem inordinately proud of the fact that you can think one level up - and have progressed to a round earth that was invented 7000 years ago and populated with creatures all in one go by a super-being who then inflicts misery on it s inhabitants for its own vicarious pleasures.
I hate to tell you this, but there are many more layers of understanding that most kids get to understand at around 7 or 8,. unless of course they are home schooled by morons who are unable to get beyond the basics themselves.
You will never get it I suppose, but I have to tell you that once up there you woould be able to comprehend that all the things you believe are also true to some greater or lesser degree, just no the way you think it is.Thanks for the encouragement.
I will work on getting to a higher level.
How many levels do I need to attain, to be where you are now?
Will it take going back to college, or university?Same ol' Marxists rhetoric. It is attracting flies.
Whether one knows science or does not know; or one has a religion or does not have; why should it bother one so much that one starts tp deride and to ridicule others and puts insutls? That is not a human approach, in no way.
Much like every time you post against atheists.
The science around the beginning of reality is not simple. It's pretty complex.
And if you insist that someone who disagrees with you needs to get more education and you don't want to waste your time. . . then really, why post anything at all?
cheersComplex? We will never scratch the surface. Faith in science to give the answer is delusional. We will not find the answer on this side of the end of time.
- So, let's just forget about it and open up the Bible to page...
Page 1
Genesis 1;1.
There's a start for you.
Then, you can try. John 1;1
Happy reading. Let us all know what you learn when you finish. (I hope I'll still be around then.(Page 1 Genesis 1;1. There's a start for you. Then, you can try. John 1
aka-dj,
Don't you have any non-fiction you can recommend?Yes I do. For someone who likes the nitty-gritty details, and all, I have three for you;
1 Leviticus
2 Numbers
3 Deuteronomy.
Enjoy!Thank you for accepting that the other books of the bible are indeed fiction.
- I had a suspicion you would say that!
That is to totally subjective inference by you. I made NO such assertion!
Nice try!
So, you concede that the three I gave you are NOT fictitious, then?
Does that mean you will read them? Let me know how you go?
aka-dj, you entire belief system depends upon you accepting the existence of someone who watches over you ... a metaphysical being.
Also it's built on the premise that you will have some kind of consciousness after the death of your physical body.
Do you feel superior in your thinking? Do you see people who don't have your beliefs as unintelligent, just on the basis of that? Or are you just criticizing their manner of discussion?I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM.
A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)
I have never felt superior, nor have I ever stated anything of the kind. In fact, I wasn't even criticising, merely drawing attention to the kind of post presented by and Atheist. All, to bring others to comment on "one of their own".
So, to that end, you can leave a personal perspective, if you like.Kinda like you don't go bowling, but instead roll large balls down narrow wooden corridors to knock down pins.
No, not at all. Terrible odds. No one in their right mind would ever gamble their entire lives on such odds.I see. You are an Atheist who doesn't resort to the same language as that in the OP.
You just twist peoples words to suit yourself. That's kind of like lying, isn't it. Politicians and the media do it all the time. You must be one of those.
If you are going to quote me, then quote me in it's entirety. Don't leave bits out, that you don't like!
What I ACTUALLY said was "A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)
That completely negates you reply as being relevant.Then, your original post was not relevant, by your very own words.
There you go!
You are doing it again. Misquoting me.
Don't you call people liars, when they twist or alter what is said?
If you are going to quote me, quote the whole context, lest you become a liar!
If you believe in HIM, then Genesis 1:1 might indeed be a good place to start to reaffirm that belief. If you don't, however, Genesis 1:1 will never convince a thinking being that they should believe in a God. Any God at all. The story is much too far-fetched and has zero evidence to back it up.
The odds are 50:50 you are right - cannot the same thing be said of the FSM? Or any other wild belief system that is completely without evidence? Now what are the odds that any one particular similar (a god like creature creating everything) out of the tens of thousands that might be conceived of is the actual correct one? One out of tens of thousands? Not good odds at all, I'm afraid.It would appear by the fact that there are so many religions in the world that odds of 50:50 are probably not correct.
If we take the top three Abrahamic religions alone and add non-belief, we have 25% odds in favor of any given one. The more religions we add, the smaller the odds for each one to be correct.
"...there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right."
If you depart from any sound logic, then you could be right.... but since when did fundamentalist thinking ever consider logic to be important?(I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM. A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right)
aka-dj,
While it is accurate to state the possibilities a single event that has equal chances to be 50/50, when the possiblities increase the odds change. When you claim a specific "him", it is like claiming that a random coin picked out of a bag of mixed coins and tossed in the air will not only come up heads (50/50), but the coin itself will be a 1938 D nickel in mint condition (1-in-total-coins-chance).
Likewise, once your claim is of a specific "Him" it is no longer a 50/50 proposition and becomes nothing more than an arbitrary chance in billions of possibilities that has no more chance of being right than any other god possibility.
PS: You may either wake up tomorrow or die tonight in your sleep. Does that make it 50/50 that you will be alive tomorrow?
"If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said."
I don't understand the text message language, but I'm curious what was said to prompt this comment.
I have never really understood why it's so hard for people to accept the fact that humans evolve. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you must accept every facet. Set the ego aside, take what works, and leave the rest.
Condemning all atheists based on the comment of one person is as useful as atheists condemning all those who believe in a creator.I dont think one can generalise about ALL atheists ,anymore than one can generalise about ALL Christians.
Are they not human first,with all those wonderful charactaristics and quirky mannerisms ,then maybe however they wish to indentify themselves second?
Then of course the real fun starts:and yet so many do, so clearly we can.
We just shouldn't. It's lazy.
cheers
- Just keep fighting-there's no reasoning with those who have no reason
I like to be on topic and if your topic invites conversation then expect a reply. If one creates a Hub on how wonderful it is to be an Atheist then I would ignore it and read stuff that would interest me. I do this with countless religions and female topics that do not ask for anyone's opinion on the subject but desire to hold a discussion with those of the same interest. Instead they ask for a reply from all parties and then write something dumb to start a conversation. I think well maybe they are interested in the opinions of all parties but most of the time they have no ability to even consider any view but their own. Even this is perfectly fine but when your only plan is to criticize others rather then make a point I find a hub that serves no real purpose. You can say a politician is great and he should be elected but you should expect to here everyone's point of view based on true and valid points. If you our an Atheist and do not believe in God then what is your point in writing about God. If we believe in scripture and there our several interpretations. Then we must assume that you have no interest in knowing such things unless you are asking, so why do they argue with the rule book? If you do not agree with the Bible and have no desire to learn anything then this must be the intelligence of the Atheist. From the view point of a believer I would have to create hubs with dumb questions such as: Why are all Atheist going to rot in the ground when they die. I am an Atheist and believe in nothing the end. (Talk about a short hub) The life of a lazy sinner and why we should legalize all crime. Most of all, do Atheist believe in ethics or have any morals and if they do why? You see being a moron and asking dumb questions is OK. Lets just say that my last choice was posted and then I spent my time criticizing them and arguing with them every time they claimed to have any morals or ethics. Your an Atheist you can not have any beliefs, morals or ethics. If they claimed they did I guess I would have to call them a Christian. Them Atheist are all closet Christians, they just never got past being spiritual babies. Or from the stand point of all believers they are going to Hell not because of me but God. Since their is no penalty for believing and no man with the power to judge or condemn me, I like to consider the possibility and take the chance that their is something better then living in a World that believes in this life.
Just my input, I think this is a contructive comment.
SanXuary.....Ditto! Thank you so much for doing all the writing for me and being so accurate in my perception of this thread. I don't get it either...all this intenitonal controversy. Arguments from diametrically opposing views/beliefs. Exactly why I steer clear of discussions on Religion & accompanying sub titles. I recently wrote a hub on precisely this! Good job, SanXuary!
Obviously de-evolving. I believe in God and evolution. Top that.
- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
0Michele Travis,
There is not a single mention of this person by any contemporary, i.e, a person who lived at the same time, even if not an eyewitness. He left no written records. There are no towns, roads, bridges, or villages named after him. No coins with his image. No engravings of any kind. No hand-drawn artwork. No carving inside a cave. Historically, he is a phantom.
The only remains of this person are second hand, third hand, and fourth hand accounts that may or may not be reliable. Some claims of historical mentions are virtually unanimously accepted as forgeries, which were common in the era. It is notable that the Romans, known for meticulous record-keeping, made no mention of this person during his life but only mentioned actions of his followers, and those mentions were after the fact.
There probably is enough evidence to think a radical rabbi lived during those times, who may have been crucified. After that, the story relies exclusively on biased non-witnesses who had an agenda to sell.I've always heard that even the most degenerate person would still acknowledge that Jesus was at least a real person, crazy or otherwise. Whether you believe the Bible is a holy book or not, its historical significance cannot be ignored. The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries as well as "non-witnesses". This is apparent in some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, ect. Paul the Apostle, though not alive at the same time, wrote many letters mentioning Jesus. You could argue, and it seems you are, that 40 different authors of the Bible from different time periods spanning 100s of years are all biased lying politicians whose account never contradict though they had little to no means to corroborate their stories. For sake of argument, what is the agenda that these so called "non-witnesses" are trying to sell? I mean, do you have any idea what the true Christian Gospel is? It's not world domination or to rule the economy or to ruin your fun, though some misguided hypocrites have try to do so falsely in the name of Christ. The Gospel, which literally mean "good news," is simply that Christ loves us more than anything, so much in fact that He shed his blood and died for our sins, taking our punishment. All we have to do is VOLUNTARILY accept this free gift. If this qualifies as an "agenda" then count me in. But right now I'd be more interested in hearing the agenda that you are trying to sell, though I already have a good idea what it is.
Again, all written by people who were not allive at the time.
Full of discrepancies, as you'd expect from people spinning yarns.
There may have been a wandering preacher of this name or several. The miracles sure as heck never happened and nobody was ever brought back to life.
It's a story. A nice, happy story. You can do well following the moral advice. That's all great. But it isn't real.There is not a discrepancy one that cannot be explained by a contextual analysis (not saying that i myself have the ability as of now to do so). I find it ironic you say that it "sure as heck" didn't happen. They say it did happen, and you say its lies. But u say it didnt' happen and that supposed to be the truth?
Oh, nonsense. Explained by hand waving lies, sure.
Wait a minute...isn't that a politician?
I believe what he is referring to is 'the force' or 'jedi mind trick.'
what i was referring to is that men smarter than you or me have studied it out and based on full contextual analysis, there are no discrepancies in the Bible (now I'm not referring to the many modern so call translations of the Bible)
AKA Winston I undsertand what you are telling me. If you do not believe, that is your right. I will not force it down your throat because that is wrong. So many things have been done by "Christians" who tried to force others to be "Christians." So, please forgive me for all that I wrote. I get a little bit excited sometimes.
Michele Travis,
There is nothing to forgive. You presented your argument and I was presenting countrary information - where either one of us did anything out of line is beyond me.
I was impressed by your list, yet at the same time I question its integrity (not yours, the list's). Eusebius was one of the great defenders of Christianity, and he is accused of forging the part of Josephus that is obviously forged and speaks of Jesus, but he, in many of his writings, discounted the words of others as unreliable.
Many times texts that we no longer have to study were quoted in order to attack the conclusions made - protoorthodoxy versus gnostic, for example.
The key issue is whether or not these scraps are historicity of an actual person or simply arguments about an ideological myth.
As for you and me, no harm, no foul, as Chick Hearn used to say.Just as an aside, wasn't Eusebius the guy who played football in the 1966 World Cup? Portugal or Argentina, can't remember which.
AKA Winston no harm no foul is the best. No idiodic insults are proof of high intelligence. The idiocy takes place on both sides.
- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago0
(The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries....This is apparent in some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
Mr. The Lone Gunmen,
I hate to be the one to break the news, but there is not a single sliver of parchment or piece of dried animal skin left that has a single letter of the original words that make up any of the books of the NT. What we have left to read are copies of copies of copies of copies and rarely do the copies match word-for-word. There is powerful evidence that the famous story of Jesus absolving the woman's sin by saying, He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, was added in the fourth century. Likewise, in the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark, the book ends at Chapter 16, verse 8 (if memory serves). There again is strong indication that Mark was added to later in order to make it more in keeping with the orthodox views that developed much, much later than the first century.
The gospels were not written by the people with their names on them (they were illiterates and spoke Aramaic, while the books are written in Greek) - this is so well known in academia (even Christian academia) as to be embarrassing to have to point out to you. No one knows who authored the original gospel books, but they have been dated to no earlier than 35-40 years after the supposed death of Jesus, with the book of John penned around 95-105 C.E., some 60-70 years after the fact.
The only NT books whose author is known are the letters from Paul, and Paul was not a first-person witness to Jesus but only someone who claimed to see a vision that he interpreted as Jesus. All other accounts of Jesus were at minimum second hand retelling of oral accounts, and were not written by anyone who had seen Jesus, lived at the same time as Jesus, or had ever heard him speak.
Sorry, but the evidence really is lacking.You see, even this information is open to interpretation!
How many manuscript pages/pieces have you (personally) studied, and researched to conclude you opinion?
My guess is NONE!
Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence, and you believed it, and are now, repeating it.
Now, that's ok, we all do it. Myself included. The question is, do you have the correct interpretation?
The big difference between believers (Christians, in particular) and non-believers, is they have personal experience to back it up. Sure ist's subjective, but that's the nature of faith.
As to your point about the writers, I let one short quote speak for itself.
Luke 1;1
1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.a 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
Heres a longer summary of my point:
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible (I expect you will dismiss this as a religious site, and therefore biased. But, isn't that the case the other way also?)No, I don't think so.
I think Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus is a decent, unbiased look at all of this - unbiased in the sense that all sides are presented fairly and accurately. A Christian can read that and come away convinced that Jesus was a real person and I can read it and remain doubtful.
That there have been historical "liars for Jesus" is without doubt and the extreme need to believe this story of course has colored all of it, from the earliest manuscripts right up to today. That doesn't mean that none of it was not based on one or more people (I'd say "or more") wandering about preaching messianic tales. It does mean that there have been not enough critical eyes - as that article says "It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work".
Somewhere up above someone used the word "degenerate" to describe anyone who questions the historical accuracy of Jesus. Honestly, that bothers me far more than those who just blindly swallow it all up as truth. As I have said many times, it's a nice story and the philosophy has value no matter what its origin. It's obvious that people want to believe it and that's fine. But to say that someone is "degenerate" for questioning something that plainly is muddled at best is really ugly.
Sigh. Somehow characterizing doubters as "degenerate" doesn't fit that philosophy well, does it?(I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.)
aka-dj,
Don't you wonder why this particular "careful account" in Luke does not match the "careful account" found in Matthew?
(Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence)
You misunderstand the difference between fact and interpretation. It is fact that there is not a single piece of surviving manuscript from any book of the New Testament.
Why there are differences between the surviving copies is a matter of interpretation.They should also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth and (to assuage their bruises after that) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
I'm sticking with myth, possibly seeded by one or more actual wandering preachers who might even have used the name.
(You see, even this information is open to interpretation!)
aka-dj,
Just because there is room for interpretation doesn't mean stupid people and intelligent people can both examine the same data and form equally reasonable and rational conclusions.
Before one can form a reaonable and rational conclusion, one must be aware of what that entails. If one doesn't know, one cannot know which side offfers the best conclusion, so one is forced in that situation to either guess or take the advice of others.
And that, dear aka-dj, is how heirarchy in churches was born - with a bunch of sheep trusting the shepherd for instructions because they couldn't figure it out for themselves.It is not how I came to know the truth.
It was Jesus that transformed my life, not some church hierarchy.
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. (or worse yet, not looking at all.)It might have been your meditation and thoughts and focus on your vision of Jesus which helped you to change your life.
But Jesus has been dead for 2000 years. He was human!
Believe what you like, but you will never convince me of your beliefs. And don't, please don't, come back at me and say "Jesus will save you." He will not. He is now as dead as he was the moment after his death.No such meditation ever took place.
Neither have I had a vision of Him. In fact, he was not on the "radar" when I was searching.
I wrote about my conversion in my story of faith. (no self promotion intended).
That's only half the story.
He was human, but also divine. He was dead, but is alive. I'm sure you are aware that the whole Gospel message is rooted and founded on these two truths.
I wouldn't say that to you, especially knowing that you were once in the church.
But, on the point of Him being dead, well, dead people don't transform peoples life.
Mate, even living ones can't do that. They can impact you to some extent, but not transform.
This discussion reminds me of watching an old Johnny Weismuller movie of the enthusiastic new American doctor having to be rescued by Tarzan after trying to explain in English to the Swahili-speaking savages why the witch doctor was wrong...some people do not have the ability to get it.
Did he, now?
So you are like the Paul or tarsus, who got revelation directly from Jesus, with out the aid of bible, the book written by Church people(evangelist) and edited by them?
Why he chose only a few like you and not everyone?It is a gift offered to all mankind.
But that gift doesn't mean much to the person receiving it until he knows it is for him/her,then of course its helpful to open that gift and see whats insideMore correctly, its a curse, but as longs as humans are animals it will do fine.
I am not cursed ,I am blessed and its all good to me -woof woof
How can someone who does not know or acknowledge God have any understanding of Gods inspiration or fulfilment of his plans through man? To claim that Jesus did not exist when their is evidence is the true intelligence of the Atheist. Every inch of scripture has been backed up from King Herod to Pilate. All the gospels are the same except some add to the account but none take away from it. Those who argue this case and ignore it have no intention of acknowledging anything. Their only goal is to remain blind and demand that everyone else must go blind as well. Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.
(Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.)
SanXuary,
I am a realist, and I demand objective evidence for what I believe. What is it you base your beliefs on, the secrets the priest whispers in your ear while his hands roam?Not all atheists claim Jesus did not exist. Jesus existing isn't proof of the existence of God.
You demand objective evidence? There is an entire World of evidence that you deny because your only agenda is to be an Atheist. Today's argument for God suffers from the same issues and those issues are people and their agendas. They are in constant conflict of man and his desire to control his destination on Earth and to hold influence over its outcome. Instead of learning and following Gods plan and his destination for your soul and nothing this World has to offer in temporary outcomes. When you reach down to nothing you appear human and such responses are predictable as well as their outcome. I believe and have a million questions that may not even exist in the Bible but the Bible is where I start. You refuse to see it as having any substance and claim nothing as an argument for your disagreement. Even if I did not believe the Bible would provide sound advice on how someone should live their life. Even Buddha who was an Atheist still had sound beliefs and principles on how to live a better life. In fact I believe that man kind is constantly trying to live within the same principles as God intended but confused by other men who choose Earthly agendas over Heavenly goals they become corrupted and simply replace God with there own ideals. Buddha was trapped by Hindus on one side and Muslims on the other and decided the hell with them both and any concept of their being a God. I am no Buddhist but as a Christian I at-least do the research and if I choose to argue I do not deny the facts.
I am not sorry to say this but one thing I have noticed in the forums and its getting really boring and tedious now - Religious extremists starting threads attacking Atheists or homosexuals etc - Then Atheists & Homosexuals extremists start threads attacking Religious people. Is it just me or can you all just agree to disagree and find something else to talk about because many people on hub pages are actually avoiding the forums. This is because they are so fed up with all the extremist BS from all sides of the equation that cant agree and are to busy fighting amongst themselves.
Not all religious people hate atheists and homosexuals only ignorant extremists
Not all Atheists hate religious people - only ignorant extremists.
Not all Homosexuals hate - Atheists and Religious people- only ignorant extremists (and yes they do exist in the gay community. Before any one asks.)
Now I know that many of you want help each other see your way, but face it not everyone wants too, so agree to disagree, now there are some threads that get put on the forums that no one even looks at, and people are asking simple questions that many of you will have answers too that are nothing to do with religion. They dont even get looked at or answered because you are too busy fighting each other over "Who is right and Who is wrong?"
If you are so intent on helping then why dont you put aside your differences and take a look at some of the other threads, there is one with some one going through domestic violence and I am shocked that no one here is willing to help or post, so please put aside your differences and help others not by preaching but by listening.That would be the highest % of those who bothered to test. It is at least a possibility that atheist have a greater need to prove to themselves that they are smart, so they take more test to prove it. Religious people are more common, but also simply don't have the need to prove they are okay. It's not God's reasoning. but a flaw built into the research. A bias that is inborn to atheist. They can't help themselves.
Actually, it wasn't. People who were being tested were chosen from all aspects of society and in several different countries. Researches take bias into consideration. It's not a bias. It's actually fact!
Perhaps we would not have these discussions if one liner Hubs inviting a discussion did not exist. The word Jewish means one who argues with God. So argument was part of the plan to begin with. None of this is about hate but the argument to research a answer other then listing human failure. Science wanted to know how the Galaxy stayed together. The answer is dark matter, something to small to be measured or seen. This makes perfect sense to me because there is no such thing as nothing. None the less I am puzzled how we can believe in something like this but not God. This dark matter is only a theory, just like parallel universes, dimensions and the list goes on. So we either make it up as we go and believe in theories or we have an open mind to many different possibilities. No the Bible does not answer such questions but it seems to be more focused on the possibility of having a soul.
It does not take any more Inteligence to be an Atheist than it does to be A Christian...
What it takes to be either... is FAITH.
Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism.
The typical mainstreem definition of "Evolution" is inclusive of the phrase "Without inteligent design" which is just as Unprovable as the existance of God is.Don't be silly. Atheism is based on a lack of evidence for Theism. There are only two choices: God(s) exist or they don't. With no evidence for the existence that leaves the decision that they don't exist as the really plausible one. Faith does not enter into it, only reason and evidence (or lack thereof).
Similarly, "without intelligent design" is another way (in terms of evolution) to saying "randomly". That term has a particular meaning, as anyone that has studied the mathematics of probability understands. If you choose to believe that a God is controlling the roll of a dice to produce the exact same results as random chance that would be your choice, but it is not reasonable to demand that everyone else include the words "without intelligent design" when discussing such matters.(Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism)
Mr. Maranatha,
Fact is, one either has good reasons for what one believes or one does not. Accepted mainstream religion is the only area where humans are not condemned as stupid for strong belief unsupported by evidence, while followers of religions that are not "mainstream" are still condemned as stupid or crazy or both.
- Chasukposted 13 years ago0
There is no intrinsic connection between atheism and belief in evolution. Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in evolution.
Who really cares, heaven or hell those who our going to hell are dead. I could careless to even argue, the hell with their souls I hope they suffer. I have dealt all my life with this garbage and their uselessness please let them die and become fertilizer. I do not care about your soul let Armageddon arrive. I hate you tortured souls who torture others and please make me a martyr. I will never stop or care, let the devil send me one more person to kill me. The hell with the stupid and idiots who argue no point. If you believe in any thing why not try the Devil? Are you afraid? let me hook you up and show you where to go.If you do not believe in anything what are you afraid of? Give your soul to Satan, go find out for yourself, wimps of no intelligence. Its not very Christian of me but then what is? Got a label for me I have a few words for you. GOD DAMNED me for sure but I wait for his vengeance and it is coming soon no help from you I am certain. Just a human standing here taking more crap then you our made from.
No thats not a nap ,thats a sleep
Hey why ya so depressed? whats up
I have read a few times that people feel like they are being 'tested' for their faith by God in order to make it into heaven. But to what extent does it go from standing up for what you believe and cross over to fighting because you are scared to let go of the idea in case their is a God? Many people say that they believe in God 'just in case'.
Also, the entire topic of this thread was atheists being grouped as one belief? How do Christians feel about being grouped? Christians are the ones with the psycho brothers and sisters.
Want to be grouped with my Aunt? A die hard Christian who believes that dinosaur bones were planted underground to test people? Since apparently the world is only a few thousand years old? So are you all the same?
I admit that I lose my mind and let my emotions get the best of me when I talk to people of religion because I simply can't understand how they allow this fantasy to cloud their mind and kill people over it. But I can say that every individual is different and to be 'intelligent' is subjective.Mules occasionally must wear blinders to be able to focus on the path in front of them. And that path is chossen by the master who holds the reains. You will only see what your master wants you to see unless you remove the blinders of ego and selfish purpose.
There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus. But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God. Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world.Then, why don't believers remove their blinders?
No proofs, no references. Sorry.Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.
some people think their beliefs are the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.
It works both ways, no?
cheersSome pets think that their master is awesome, loving and merciful than any other pets master. Ironically their master failed to write the books which are only readable by their pets and instead he asked few favorites to write it to help other pets. So they go on preaching spree in every continent to spread the virus. That proves our point ---"Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth."
So, Christians are just pets in a yard?
***************************
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.Score for theist biggots. Just like them to refer to atheists as incomplete, or half-blind mules. Kindly remove yourself from that high horse so you can see the world from a point of view not clouded by your theistic arrogance.
Dr. McNair,
This type of empty rhetoric may work from the pulpit to amaze and dazzle the choir, but do you sincerely expect to sway the public in a sectarian forum with nothing but clever-sounding but unwarranted allegorical analogies?
- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago0
(There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus. But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God. Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world)
Likewise, once you remove the blinders of Christianity, scientific proofs and references abound that dead tissue cannot reanimate, "spirits" cannot cause pregnancy, and a human cannot live in the sky for thousands of years and then return to earth.
However, speaking of mules, there is that flying mule that carried Muhammed to heaven and back. Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists? It probably is, three or four steps above the so-called christians who will believe almost anything.
Hmm.. that guy failed to save his own life and ultimately failed to stand as a savior. Saying that he died for our sin is no different than saying Kim kardashian getting married for the sake of love.
http://daekin.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-become-an-atheist
Not all of us are incoherent babblers.- Chasukposted 13 years ago0
I like the Charles Baudelaire quote, “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist,” but my agnosticism dulls any alarm I might feel being trapped in this situation of mutually conflicting, yet dependent conditions.
"Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?"
Grammar? Construction of heading? Question answered?I dropped by drawn in by the title of this thread - to find the same boring sheeple baaaing.
When will fundamental religion come be treated like the mental desease that it is.I can't let that pass.
I admit that some of what you read in forums like this sounds insane, but religion is not a disease of any kind.
I had more to say, but I rambled on for a thousand plus words and then some, which nobody would ever read.
I'll leave at this: religion is irrational but there is nothing insane about that. Some of the most important decisions we make in life are irrational. I'm not a fan of religion, but it's definitely not insanity.Well - as you can see I said fundamental religion - not religion per se.
Sprituality is an essential part of humanity, and if religion is the way some people find it then what the heck. But fundamental religion is just a shitty little parasite on the least intelligent and least well educated people, who deserve better from those they look to for help and support.
The constant stream of moron threads, that seem to come mostly from people who sign up just to post drivel here, just degrade the value of this site.The definition of sanity that I like the best is that "when everyone around you appears to be insane then it is probably you" and when science, philosophy and reason appear insane, as they do to fundamentalists, then I suggest it is more insanity than simple stupidity.
I think that would be an excellent thread topic, guys.
Speaking and/or asking favors from imaginary beings, kneeling and begging for forgiveness from same, worshipping pieces of wood and cloth supposedly touched by some special person, and lets not forget torturing killing those less than perfect belief to save them from some worse fate, I think all these would qualify as insanity.
I quite agree. It's always strange though, how your President and our Prime Minister are always seen as practising Christians. Where do they find the time to run the country - or are they having us on?
- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago0
(What part of Allah being a pagan god before Mohammed do you not understand?)
Obviously the part that you don't understand. Just because there was someone named Jesus who is claimed to have been the messiah does not mean that everyone in Mexico named Jesus is related to him. There is no correlation - see?Okay, how many Allahs do you know of?
"In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."
So we have a moon god titled Allah before Mohammed depicted with a crescent moon. Sound familiar? In fact, the worship of the moon god Allah was the main religion in the Middle East before Mohammed.
"Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)
"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)
"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406)
"Ilah ... appears in pre-Islamic poetry ... By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry"
(Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, III:1093)
"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)
The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)
Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)
http://www.investigateislam.com/moonGod.htm
It's pretty interesting that Allah was one of the Meccan deities. Don't Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca?
Mohammed grew up with the moon-god religion. His fellow pagan Arabs
considered Allah to be the greatest of all the gods. Mohammed decided that he was going to decree Allah to be the only god. So the pagan Arabs didn't object to this since Allah was their greatest god anyway but he wanted to influence the Christians and Jews, too, by saying Allah was their god, too. However, no mention of Allah is made in either the Old or New Testament or Hebrew texts for that matter.
I've got a quote here from WikiIslam:
Islam is a monotheistic bastardization of the pre-Islamic polytheistic religion followed by the inhabitants of 7th century Arabia. Its pagan heritage is clearly evident.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam
I think it should be clear to you now where Allah came from. Mohammed knew damn well that Allah is a moon god.I find it hilarious and hypocritical that Claire goes to such lengths to criticize other religions origins but refuses/denies her own.
Oh, so what is the origin of my religion, ATM? Why would I have a religion I didn't know the origin of? That's a bit silly, don't you think? I was actually writing about the origins of my religion to angelars. You must have missed it.
It goes well beyond silly, Claire.
You mean, your version of it.Okay, then. You give me the origin of Christianity.
There are many alternatives, Claire, none of which you would probably entertain.
For example, it's origins could be simply the fact that ignorant people have a tendency to assign divinity to ordinary human beings.A tendency that has lasted for well over 2,000 years and as strong as ever.
Now in a scientific world that would be a fact by nowReligious indoctrination and ignorant people assigning divinity to normal humans is a fact.
Why would people assign divinity to Him without Him doing anything extraordinary? Can you give me an example what He would have done to be called divine?
It is believed He gave sight to the blind, but He never cured blindness. How divine is that?
"....He gave sight to the blind,...." It was a metaphor. Live with it, applies equally today.
I thought Jesus have actually cured two blind men as stated in Matthew 20:29-34...
"29 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. 30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
31 The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
32 Jesus stopped and called them. “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
33 “Lord,” they answered, “we want our sight.”
34 Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him."
You could very well be right in that it was simply a metaphor.Thanks ATM. Whether what I have said is right or wrong, it does not matter to me, because we cannot know for sure what those circumstances were, i.e., the actual disease those two men were suffering from; was it a physical malady like congealed secretions,or something? I am not prepared to even discuss whether it was a miracle or not.
The only way we can move forward, having heard something like that, is to get the "mote" out of our own eyes, see the world in all it's glory, and do our bit in working for a better one.
An old saying: "There's none so blind as thems that won't see!"
By healing, Jesus was proving they could be healed because they had faith in Him. In everything Jesus did, He was teaching the importance of faith. Do you think that all blind people should have woken up one day seeing?
Claire, I'm going to have to question you on this one. By my recollection, some of the people healed had no idea it was coming. I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text. Some of the people didn't appear to expect, or hope, for the outcome.
I think, when you infuse a belief while reading the text, you might miss out on a simple message. I'm not implying that belief is a bad thing, but I do think the Christian idea of faith sometimes inhibits the ability to think outside of the box created to contain you by the church, at large, over the past two thousand years.There are many instances where Jesus commended the sick for their faith. Read Mark 10:46-52:
46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”
So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
The blind man did have faith that Jesus would heal Him. Jesus wanted to show the crowd just what faith in Him could do. It was not just out of compassion that He healed. He emphasizes that a lack of faith will get you nowhere.
Matthew 17:14-20:
14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 “[a]Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a [b]lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured [c]at once.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” 20 And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith [d]the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.It would be wonderful if these things happened more often.
The last time I lost the sight in one eye, I was obliged to get on my motorcycle, negotiate London's rush traffic, deliver myself into the care of Moorfield's Eye Hospital emergency services, wait for a diagnosis, wait for the required number of nurses to hold me down/reassure me, receive the injection of steroids into my grossly, autoimmune stricken eye and then drive home again.
Does Jesus appreciate how difficult it is to pilot a motorcycle through London with just one functioning eye?Well, remember that Jesus was there in person to heal them. That is not the case now. I'll tell you what, though. Faith in Jesus may not cure an illness, but, if allowed by God, immense spiritual refinement can come out of suffering. There will always be a solution to any problem if one trusts in Jesus and I mean giving your life to Him, not just a request like a genie.
Jesus never gives us more than we can take. My aunt almost died from an aneurysm and suffered greatly. The spiritual refinement she got out of it was overwhelming. It gave her peace and even a stronger relationship with Christ.Jesus has abandoned us? Thank heavens for the the NHS.
What are you talking about? Why say Jesus has abandoned us? He is here in spirit.
You now contradict yourself and millions of other Christians.
Some Christians have great eyesight while others are blind. Oh yes, that's fair.Oh, how many Christians think that Jesus is in person here now? That's the first I've heard that claim. Millions don't claim it, that's for sure.
"Some Christians have great eyesight while others are blind. Oh yes, that's fair."
Some have peaceful deaths while the Son of God gets crucified naked and descends into hell. Oh yes, that's fair.
You just don't get it, do you? Suffering is what refines a person. You get someone who has an easy life and chances are they are a shallow, nasty person. How can one experience joy when one hasn't experienced pain? How does one feel love without knowing what hate is?
I would never take back the suffering I've been through because it has matured me and enabled me to feel a deep sense of joy and peace. This is not something the world can give you. I would not like the person I would have been should my life have been a breeze.
I don't think you will understand what I've said. You live on the surface.Yes, they do. And, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to argue that point with them. It's as if you weren't even aware there are over 38,000 different denominations of Christianity, each with their own variation of fantasy.
Your comparison of reality to your religious fantasy is quite disingenuous, Claire.
Complete nonsense.
Don't be ridiculous, one can easily experience joy and love without having to experience pain and hate.
And, once again, you contradict yourself when you tell me to embrace your God so that evil and suffering can be eradicated. It's almost as if your write something and then totally forget it the very next moment.
You live in a complete fantasy, Claire, and contradict yourself from one statement to the next. Oh yes, I understand what you say.So what Christians believe Jesus is here with us now? I'm curious.
You think suffering can not refine a person? Then you are very ignorant of the world.
I don't know how someone can feel love not knowing what hate is. Sorry, I just don't get it.
"And, once again, you contradict yourself when you tell me to embrace your God so that evil and suffering can be eradicated. It's almost as if your write something and then totally forget it the very next moment."
How have I contradicted myself? Anyway, I never said you alone embracing God would eradicate evil and suffering. That's impossible! Lol. However, suffering and evil is the result of embracing Satan and rejecting God. So every person who loves God lessens the power of the devil in their small way. Can you imagine if all of us loved God?
This is getting old, ATM. If I live in a complete fantasy, move onto the next person and leave me to my fantasies. I'm not harming anyone.
I would like to address this one point Claire, because you are woefully wrong. As long as you espouse your fantasies as facts on a cosmic scale you run the risk of harming others. Few will feel inclined to leave you to your fantasies on that count alone. If you want freedom of conscience, stop pushing in an attempt to force others to believe their understanding is wrong. No one would seek you out to call you delusional. You sought the dialogue. You can't honestly cry foul when you encounter other opinions.So you are saying I'm a potentially dangerous person? Lol. How can I harm others? I have NEVER forced others to believe what I say. How can I? Hold a gun to their head? Just to add, it is you people who approach me and stoked the fire. You know the best way to get rid of me is? Just ignore me. If no one is responding to what I have to say, I "unfollow" the forum.
And you can't blame me for thinking ATM is tiresome.No one is trying to get rid of you Claire. By my interpretation of posts in response to yours....people are trying to talk some sense into you.
And, believe it or not, you are dangerous. As are others like you. If you convince people that you have a line on God and then you start in on the usual Christian condemnation cr#p, it will hurt people. You will have, effectively, convinced people that God doesn't love them for who they are.
The fact that you don't get it is maddening on some levels, for some people, I'm sure. You talk about holding a gun to people's heads. It is a delusion spiritual gun Claire. By your definition souls will suffer. Eternally. If they come to believe what you say is fact.
And, just to add... your comment about stoking the fire. Grow up. You want to post, you had better be prepared for intelligent and reasonable rebuttal. You had better be prepared for what you don't consider to be intelligent and reasonable rebuttal. You don't own the forums Claire. You don't get carte blanche rights to post your fantasies as fact.You should try and get rid of me if I am a dangerous person. Might save some lives.
First of all, am I deviating from Jesus' teachings? Also, did I ever claim that God doesn't love them for who they are? Where did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. We have all been deceived by Satan and have sinned. That doesn't mean God is going to throw us into the pits of hell. It is for the reason of our weakness that Jesus died for our sins. We cannot redeem ourselves.
You have got to realize that if I am indoctrinated, then there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You cannot reason with a brain-washed person so you are wasting your time.
Hey, I was just giving you advice on how to shut me up and that was to ignore me. By stoking the fire, I meant you are keeping the correspondence alive just for me to spout more nonsense.
"Suffering is what refines a person."
Claire, I would love to hear you say that when YOU are in the hot seat, suffering all manner of abuse and hatred; when your torturers are members of a government or an elite group, fully protected and hiding behind secrecy, so that you are totally on your own.
You will be ultra-refined then!Johnny, many people have gone through horrific things who have said their suffering brought them closer to God.
It is true that I have had not suffered to the degree mentioned in your example but I have been through enough to want me to consider suicide at one stage of my life.
So, there are no faithful blind people in the world? Now, that's compassion.
That was Jesus' physical hand on that person who healed the blind. Help today comes in the form of the Holy Spirit who will help us endure anything that comes our way. I can attest to that.
I think that if all blind men prayed today for their sight to be restored and got what they wished for, they would treat God like a genie. No faith would have to be exercised. If they want some more cash, just ask God! Have a sore back? Just ask God to heal it. Then He'd become their personal servant instead of their source of faith.
Jesus certainly didn't get what He wanted when He wanted. His faith was tested to breaking point.
I don't think you know anything about compassion. I think you are empty inside looking for some cheap thrills at the religious forums. It's very sad.Pure garbage, you attest to nothing but fantasy.
Once again, you do little more than contradict yourself and your fellow Christians who pray to God for all those things, and when they receive any of them, they further spoil the pot by praising God.
That's rich, compassion for you is to pray to an invisible super being to come and eradicate disease, evil and suffering.
I didn't say no one ever expected to be healed. I said it wasn't always assumed that this would be the end result. It wasn't faith that healed everyone.
You said it wasn't faith in Jesus that healed them and I gave you examples that it was. Why would someone go to Jesus thinking He may not be able to help them? In those instances they could not be healed. Was there any diseased person who said he wasn't sure Jesus would heal him/her? The faith is coming to Jesus knowing healing would happen.
Claire, the point I'm making is that your claim doesn't apply across the board. Not everyone had any idea who they were dealing with. They were obviously Jewish, so one would assume they had knowledge of the one God; but the encounters happened too early in the ministry of Jesus for these people to have any preconceived notions as to what he might be capable of. These people didn't seek Jesus out. Nor is it implied that Jesus sought them out. Their paths simply crossed.
Also, faith had nothing to do with some miracles later in his ministry. He was scoffed at on at least one occasion when he came to raise someone from dead.
Your claims of the need for faith in Christ, in order to benefit from the graces of God, are only supported when you ignore the passages that don't fit your interpretation.Actually, many people came to Him because they heard He was a great healer. If they didn't know who He was when they approached Him, then He must have been in the process of healing someone else in order to make them think He was a healer.
In some cases, it is the faith of those who care for the sick that are awarded. The Roman Centurion had faith that Jesus could heal his servant and that was rewarded. It's a big deal for a Roman to pay such homage to a Jew. Many people just saw the truth when they looked upon Jesus' face. That is to come with all of us.
I was particularly referring to the healing miracles that was a reward of faith.
I don't see myself misinterpreting scriptures. I'm just going by what Jesus said and that is the only to the Father is through Him. He said it.You were not even there to witness any of this ridiculous fairytale, yet you spout this illogical nonsense with complete confidence. You have no evidence of anything. As for as you REALLY know, Jesus probably never said anything. And, he certainly never healed anyone. That is completely absurd.
Why are you getting so uptight? If someone said they had the faith in Santa Claus, I would be quite amused but not angry!!
Claire, I'll post one more time. If you continue to circle around and not adress my point I will assume you are being willfully obtuse. Never have I said that some were not healed by faith.
The point is that not all were healed by faith. In as much as this fact is clear in the text, your assertion that it was faith in Jesus alone that healed them is not supported. Clearly, others benefited without acknowledging anything prior to the miracle..This is what you wrote:
"I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text"
So you were saying no one was healed through faith.
Please give me an instance where it specifically demonstrates that someone who didn't believe Jesus could heal them was actually healed. The person who touched His garment and was healed was because she/he had faith she/he would be healed. She wouldn't have followed Him if she/he did not believe He could do so.
Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith He would heal them. He already knew. Jesus demonstrated what a lack of faith does to His own disciple, Peter, when a lack of faith caused him to sink in the water.
Not to sound like an atheist debater here but..how incredibly dishonest of you. You know that is not what I said. But if a lie is easier than facing the question, you must do what you have to do.
This is one of the primary reasons I don't see how you would consider yourself qualified to be arguing a Christian case. I think you are a detracter. An 'anti Christ' to coin one of the favorite phrases many of you throw at the rest of us. You haven't bothered to read the text. Some zealot filled your head with fairy tales and cut you loose on the world at large.
John 5:1-8.
John 6:1-13 No one was healed, but all were miraculously fed.
Mark 9:14-29. Serious doubt coupled with hope for a miracle. That was not faith.
So there are three miracles that were not the result of faith by the public Claire. Easily remembered by someone who read the text. It could be argued that Jesus's faith brought them on, but that isn't your argument.
You are right. That is certainly clear from a reading of the text. He didn't require faith. He just did it. So, why are you here in the forums arguing the exact opposite for those alive today?"I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text"
It sounds as if you are saying they weren't healed by faith in Jesus. This could be a case of ambiguity.
You did say the above quote but I clearly didn't understand what you were saying properly. For that I apologize.
Be careful who you call an Anti-Christ. I am not overly familiar with the Bible and am still in the learning process. That is one of the reasons why I come to the forums to debate. Sometimes it is a waste of time but other times I learn from others.
John 6:1-13
The man in these verses did not show any doubt. When Jesus commanded Him to walk, He got up at once and walked. He did not give Him stare.
John 5:1-8:
This was not a healing case. In this case, Jesus was testing their faith. Jesus did that in healing cases, too, but the ones who got healed had faith.
Mark 9:14-29.
Before Jesus drove out the demon, the doubting man cried, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
The man changed from, "IF you can do anything..." to "I do believe!"
He did not say he believed after his son was exorcised.
To this day, Jesus can do nothing for anyone if they do not have faith in Him. A poor faith puts obstacles in His way making it for difficult for Him to work in our lives. If our faith is strong and we say, "I believe!", He is unstoppable!
"Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith He would heal them."
I think you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith. He knew their inner most thoughts already. That is why some could be healed automatically.
When he wanted to teach those unbelievers who were present at the healing, He would outwardly commend them for their faith.So, you aren't familiar with the Bible, in your own words. That seems odd. To argue in defense of something you willingly admit you are not familiar with. How does that work Claire? You do realize that you come across as attempting to pass on some spiritual truth. If you don't know what you are talking about; what you are doing is passing on another person's words and trying to convince us these are God's opinions.
If you haven't bothered to read the text.....what, exactly, is your purpose?I said I'm not overly familiar. However, you didn't refute what I said about the scriptures I posted for you so I have not been proven wrong and since you can't, I can assert as truth that Jesus can do nothing for a person without faith.
I'm coming under attack here and am being thrown off.
You owe me a big apology for calling me an anti-Christ.No Claire. You can only assert that as your opinion. You can't claim truth. The text can be view from many angles and interpreted in an infinite number of ways. This is evidenced by the tens of thousands of sects within your religion and the billions of variations as argued by Christians.
I wasn't attempting to change your mind as much as I was pointing out what I saw in the text. I can give you room to think whatever you want, I'm just not inclined to pretend that what anyone thinks is truth must be accepted by others. No one can prove they, alone, are right.
And if I felt as if I owed you an apology I would give it. I stand behind my previous statement. You guys are always quick to point out that the term simply means against Christ. My personal interpretation of the text is the opposite of your own. So you are anti my interpretation of the teachings....which means anti Christ from the place I stand.I think it is disgusting that you don't it is necessary to apologize.
"My personal interpretation of the text is the opposite of your own. So you are anti my interpretation of the teachings....which means anti Christ from the place I stand."
How can I be an anti Christ because I'm against YOUR interpretation? What have I said that was against Christ's teaching? An anti-Christ is someone who deliberately deceives, like a sleeper.That statement somewhat epitomizes the reasons I think many, such as yourself, simply use Christianity to inflate your ego. You don't understand the teachings of Christ.
You are joking? Right? Christians use that term all of the time. Against secular ideas. Against interpretations of other sects within your faith. Against other religions. That is exactly how Christians define that term. Your interpretation is 'the word of your god'. That is your delusion. It is not my truth. It is your ego. It is how a god would be if you ruled the cosmos.
We'll use this sentence. It's a good one. If your interpretation is wrong Claire, you are a deceiver. You couldn't argue that you aren't deliberating pushing your opinion here. You can't prove you are right yet you attempt to speak for a god. If that god is your ego you are deliberating leading people astray. So, you've defined yourself as an anti christ.
Actually, on second thought, you've admitted you haven't read the text. You've obviously been indoctrinated by a charismatic preacher. Maybe a better definition would be a minion of an anti christ.I can't recall what text I didn't read. Enlighten me? You say I don't understand the teachings of Christ yet you didn't bother to correct my answers to the scriptures you posted. Or didn't you read that? Enlighten me. Explain the teachings of Christ.
How can you justify calling other people anti-Christs because of what OTHER Christians have done? You don't know me. I am not against Jesus nor His teachings so I'm not an anti-Christ. If you still believe that I am one, which is disgusting, then do so. I can't force you not to.
What interpretations of mine were wrong? That I said Jesus could not heal if one did not have faith? Since you did not correct my response to your scriptures, I take it I'm right.
Only pushing my opinion because you guys address me.Claire, I'm not on a mission to lead anyone into an understanding of particular parts of scripture. If I attempted to do as you ask, I'd be no better than you.
My point is that it is no one's place to be here pushing their opinions as if they were God's opinions. Discussion is great. But, we are all on an equal footing and when some push their personal opinions as if they were backed by a God it moves from great to pointless and ridiculous.
You don't know anything more than I do on a cosmic scale and I guarantee you I don't know anything more (when it involves the teachings in the gospels) than my understanding of how those teachings can be used by me, to attempt to make me a better person. And that is all the text is good for Claire. If you look at all of the interpretations, all of the sects; you will realize that no one has a line on God. If it was there, you would all agree. The fact that you don't, and continue to splinter into more and more sects as time goes on, speaks volumes.
You need to get perspective. You don't speak for God, you don't understand God through your 'special' relationship with a Holy Spirit and Christian teachings fly in the face of reality so they could not be indicative of the desires of God. You have no proof that you are more special to anything on a cosmic scale than any other human being..no matter what their belief might be. To argue otherwise is wishful thinking and somewhat selfish.
Unless you can tell me that Jesus Christ, himself, appeared before you and told you to do all of this....to say all of the things you've said here on this forum, you are deluding yourself.
Honestly? You would need to get Christianity to redefine their use of the term before your point about anti Christ would be true. As far as my opinion on the teachings is concerned; I think it boils down to a simple thing of attempting to look within myself to find a way to ensure that my actions in this reality come as close as possible to the embodiment of the two commandments Jesus said encapsulated all of the others. As an agnostic; I am left to attempt to find a way to embody the second. It's not something I find to be easy, nor is it something I am particularly good at (I'm sure you would agree); but I plod along. That is what I got out of it. Which means diddly to anyone else, because they should read the text and decide for themselves what it means to them.
I don't see Christianity, as it is practiced by the majority, (or as it is espoused by you) as attempting to embody the second, so it can't embody the first. If you loved God, you would keep his commandments. If you believe Jesus is God, you would keep his two commandments. Not seek out conflict and argue incessantly in an attempt to prove yourself right here on the forums.
Unfortunately Claire, by my understanding of the text, you are wrong. You are simply not wrong by your understanding. And that is OK with me only if you give room for other people's understandings to be OK with you. Which you don't, as evidenced by your statement.
The text is open to interpretation. If God exists, that is for a reason. And the only reason I can see is that what you are arguing isn't really that important and the fact that Christians continue to argue means they are consistently ignoring the most valuable lessons Jesus taught.The whole point of Christian is that Christians can actually know the Holy Spirit personally. You can actually have a relationship with Him. This is not confined to me and I have never espoused that. It is a gift to all that seek it. I've got a feeling you see me as a sort of Paul. Preaching about Jesus even though I never met Him.
"If you believe Jesus is God, you would keep his two commandments. Not seek out conflict and argue incessantly in an attempt to prove yourself right here on the forums."
So you are saying I don't love my God with all my heart? You make a lot of assumptions. Loving your neighbour does not mean agreeing and being at peace with everyone. Jesus said He came to bring a sword. In other words, His truth divides people. He was very antagonistic and lambasted the Pharisees. He wasn't always gentle Jesus.
You are the one who is picking a fight with me. I never approached you in the first place.
Let's just agree to disagree. If you obey the second commandment, you will do just that.I didn't say that. Claiming to love God is the easy part Claire. Being the embodiment of that love is a whole other thing entirely. Words are cheap.
Case in point Claire. In this situation you are the Pharisee. Truth does divide people, but whose truth is doing the dividing and why? That's what you need to ponder. Just because you are being argumentative and confrontational doesn't mean you are correct in your assessment of that statement. Maybe, it means that you have misinterpreted something and simply use that interpretation because you enjoy the strife.
Claire, if you post on this forum you are voicing an opinion. If I post in disagreement, you can't call it picking a fight. If we are going to use the term then you are the one picking the fight by posting first.
Two things. First; I said I wasn't very good at it. And I'll spend a moment after I hit submit pondering whether or not you are right. Secondly, you still don't have unrestricted rights to speak without a response. If you want that, you might join the clergy and start your own church.
This is what you wrote:
"I don't see Christianity, as it is practiced by the majority, (or as it is espoused by you) as attempting to embody the second, so it can't embody the first. If you loved God, you would keep his commandments."
You are implying I don't keep His commandments and the first one is to love the Lord with all your heart.
I also don't think you fully understand what love is. Love doesn't mean agreeing with everyone and being sweet as pie. It means standing up for what is right and that causes sparks to fly.
How am I the Pharisee? You have not replied to my comments on the scriptures you posted so I am assuming I am right or else you would have corrected me. So if I am espousing the teachings of Jesus, how am I a Pharisee? Trust me, that's the last thing they did!
And I hate strife. It very much stresses me out. I do cry about it but sometimes it is necessary.
You don't just post in disagreement. You have been most aggressive to me calling me an anti-Christ most unjustifiably. I try and say let's agree to disagree but you keep attacking me. When I make my first post, I make it in a respectable manner. Unfortunately, many people come out of the blue and say, "How dare you say this...etc", instead of saying, "I disagree with you." You initially did that but then started to get hysterical.
I have never complained about getting responses. I want responses. It gets a discussion going. What I do have contention with is when people start attacking me. It indicates insecurities.I'm not certain I would agree that I implied it. I said it. You ignore half of the passage. As do most evangelicals. There are two commandments there. And a ministry of condemnation ignores the second. There are multiple interpretations available in the text and it is my opinion that those who choose to interpret it as you do have little love for their fellow man.
That is in direct violation to the second part, so if you ignore your god's words and commandments how can you argue that you love him?
The funny thing about that statement is that we are both speaking in defense of what we believe to be right. So, it would appear you have misjudged what I may think on the subject of love.
I have voiced my opinion on what the text meant. You have ignored it in favor of the teachings of your sect. I have argued in defense of what I see as the spirit of the meaning, and I think you have been blinded by the letter of what you perceive to be the law. You sound like a pharisee to me. But that is simply my perception.
I'm not completely sure I understand why you find this a difficult point to follow, but I'll try once more.
If you ignore a portion of the teachings so that you can use another portion in an attempt to spiritually batter another human being you are not teaching the message as I perceive to be outlined in the gospels. You are attempting to cobble text together in order to teach hell and damnation, when the message wasn't that, imo.
The pharisees used the text in order to enslave others spiritually. That is what you are attempting to do.
I think you are going over board with the anti christ thing. I've been labeled that hundreds of times simply for disagreeing. I'm not going to be held responsible for an over reaction. And if you go back you will see that you said we had nothing else to say to each other and I stopped replying. You then went back to a previous post and reengaged. Your choice, not mine. Hysterical? That has been your reaction to my comments throughout this exchange. Please don't project your problems on me.
First of all you claim you didn't say I don't love God because I don't keep His two commandments, then when I pointed out you did, you admit you said it. What??
There is no other interpretation that Jesus can do nothing for you without faith. Peter momentarily lost faith in Jesus and started to sink when walking on water. So if coming to that obvious conclusion means I don't have love then I'm quite puzzled because it doesn't make sense.
Where did I condemn you? Please quote me. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and even brought a whip in a rage when there was trading going on in God's temple. He chastised the faithless. That means Jesus could not have loved His neighbour.
No, you are saying that I don't have love because I disagree with you. You should know that disagreements don't entail a lack of love.
You did not respond to this comment of mine in response to your opinion on what the text meant. You claimed that faith was not needed in all cases of healing and miracles and I posted this in response:
John 6:1-13
The man in these verses did not show any doubt. When Jesus commanded Him to walk, He got up at once and walked. He did not give Him stare.
John 5:1-8:
This was not a healing case. Anyway, the disciples were initially asking a rational question to Jesus how they could feed the 5 thousand but they never thought He couldn’t do it. If not, Jesus would have chastised them for their lack of faith.
Mark 9:14-29.
Before Jesus drove out the demon, the doubting man cried, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
The man changed from, "IF you can do anything..." to "I do believe!"
He did not say he believed after his son was exorcised.
What is your response to this?
What portion did I leave out?
"I think you are going over board with the anti christ thing. I've been labeled that hundreds of times simply for disagreeing. I'm not going to be held responsible for an over reaction. And if you go back you will see that you said we had nothing else to say to each other and I stopped replying. You then went back to a previous post and reengaged. Your choice, not mine."
The difference between you and me is that you don't people Jesus is the son of God while I know and love Him with all my heart. Why did I have the humility to apologize to you when I misunderstood what you said but you cannot do the same! And I'm called egotistical! Okay, should we agree to stop answering to one another now? To make it clear?
"Hysterical? That has been your reaction to my comments throughout this exchange. Please don't project your problems on me."
Really? Hysterical? Annoyed, yes, but not hysterical. Let us not project our problems on one another and stop now. Treat the scriptures question as rhetorical.This is my last point. You don't bother to listen, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to continue on. But I have to tell you, by your post you called Jesus a liar. Someone who breaks even the commandment he said was one of the two none were greater than.
It's disheartening to find out what a Christian uses their scriptures for in order to justify their behavior; but it has certainly been enlightening.I never called Jesus a liar! How dare you! You seem to like twisting my words around. Let me clear this up because I suspect Kikilari is speaking about me. You say I don't love my neighbour because I cause conflict. By that same standard, since Jesus caused conflict, then that means He didn't love His neighbour according to YOUR OWN logic. Do you understand what I mean now? Standing up for what is right does not mean you hate the person you are standing up to. I most certainly know that Jesus did not hate His neighbour. He even asked His Father to forgive those who were busy crucifying Him.
I've had enough now.You specifically stated that Jesus didn't love his neighbor because he was fretted with the money changers. If you didn't mean what you said, say so. But, I do think you have completely ignored the core meaning of the gospels. You look toward only the points that allow you to conduct yourself in this manner. Which is your right. As I have the right to speak for what I believe to be right.
Stamping your virtual foot only impresses you and people of your mindset. It provides people like me amusement.
So it would seem that I could substitute Jesus with Thor and get the same result--if it is based solely on believing that fictional characters can heal.
Go for it. If praying to Thor makes you happy, don't let me stand in your way.
Of course, that is exactly what a loving god would do, he would irradiate blindness, cancer, heart disease and host of other ailments that plague mankind...
... if indeed, he was a "loving" god.And would God eradicate man's free will to follow Satan? You know why there is disease, evil and suffering in this world? Because man gives power to Satan. When good men do nothing they give power to Satan. God could take it all away but then He would have violated our free will and we'd be nothing more than slaves.
Here's a question to you. Would you obediently obey God at all times and do everything He wanted even if you didn't just to take away all the evil in the world? Answer that honestly. Do you like the idea of being a slave? Answer that honestly.
It is a true battle between good and evil in this world. God is powerful in the lives of those who love Him. He's unstoppable, actually. However, when one has chosen to renounce Him, He can do nothing with them. All the suffering in the world is because WE allow it. Turn to God if you want to start eradicating suffering.- No Claire, it's called reality and there are plenty of rational, logical terrestrial explanations as to why we have disease, evil and suffering in the world. One primary reason for the evil in the world is religion and that has brought and continues to bring on a whole lot of suffering. Your ridiculous fantasies about gods and demons only serves to promote the evil and suffering.
I need not be obedient or a slave to your laughable fantasies, Claire.
There is no battle, Claire. Only Hollywood and fairy tales are based on that ideal.
Not only does that contradict your first statement, it shows a complete lack of any moral or ethical fortitude and a deep desire to do absolutely nothing at all to help eradicate disease, evil and suffering, but instead promote it to it's obvious and ultimate ends.
Claire,
You would be well-served to study correlations and causations. Just because the Nazis used a symbol that ancient Indians also used does not mean that Hitler was a reincarnation of Geronimo.
What about pantheists?
Don't we have any pantheist representatives here on HP?
We should be more well-rounded, don't you think, instead of polarized?We have heard nothing from the panentheists either. They will help us keep away from the polarisation that we are suffering from.
A little definition of panentheism.
Matthew Fox writes: "As the ocean is in the fish and the fish are in God, so God is in everything and everything is in God." Theologians call this Biblical position "panENtheism," meaning literally, "all in God." Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which maintains that God is all, and all is God. Panentheism is not yet in most dictionaries, but with Google listing over 8500 pages with the word, perhaps its time has come!
At least Pantheism makes more sense. So, there you have it, Mighty Mom: "We need MORE rational pantheists in the 'Religion & Philosophy' forums as opposed to the abundance of pantywaist panises without reason." Sounds good to me...
I think that I'll stick with atheism Charles. The religious freaks will always be around, getting up our noses but there is no god to follow them!!!
What right do you have to call anyone a freak?
The same right religious folk have to call him a Godless heathen. It works both ways.
Mmmmm...
No, I don't think so. As an atheist, I am "godless" and although adding "heathen" is somewhat redundant, it isn't insulting.
There certainly are religious freaks - I'd say those Westboro Baptists qualify. But the great majority of religious people are not like that and enough of them are truly wonderful people that I think the "freaks" get cancelled out (not that I wouldn't like to see them gone, of course).
So George is correct that the freaks will always be around, but that could easily be taken as insulting to all relgious people.I've seen plenty of good religious folk and I've had my fill of the thumper freaks but to them, we're just as freaky. I'm not religious nor am I atheist thus, I see it clearly from both sides.
I don't even know where I fit in. I hate religion, yet I'm not an atheist. Does that make any sense to you?Hard question to answer..
I don't see "hating" religion except as hyperbole when annoyed by some particular excess. As a general statement, though, I don't see that as sensible.I Can't say I hate religion so much so as see it as a form of social elitism. Again, you can see it from both sides. Many atheists see themselve's as better, as do many religious. This applies only on an individual basis, I'm not trying to generalize.
Shrug. I see myself as "better". Most of us do. Seeing yourself as inferior is not healthy.
I know that as an agnostic, you get annoyed by the certainty of atheists. Get over it: we are annoyed by your wishy-washy inability to make a decision. We are all annoyed when others cannot see what is very plain to us.
I get very weary of "You're OK, I'm OK" PC correctness. I accept the fact that other people have different opinions from my own and I can even accept that in some cases they may be right and I may be wrong. In other circumstances, I am fully confident that I am correct, and in those cases, I'm not going to pretend that I think their ideas are equal to mine.I don't see myself as any better or worse than anyone else, we're all prisoners of time and place. The limits of our perceptions stop at what we can see, when I look at another person I see myself. How can I be better or worse than anyone else? My motives and actions may differ, but I'm still just as lost and confused as any other person.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I do not feel lost and confused and I do not think my opinions have the same value as everyone else.
I'll assert that most people feel exactly as I do. Most of us do not go through life hesitating and unsure, meek and timid. We know what we think and why we think it.
I realize that quite a few people will make the appropriate "Aw, shucks" noises and quote the PC aphorisms for social purposes. Nobody stands in front of a crowd and says "I know better" very often. Actions tell a different story, though. Most people do proceed with confidence that they are thinking correctly most of the time.So, because I don't see myself as better or worse, than I am at a lower level? I'd like to think that it's because I'm humble, not timid. I see everyone as equals, maybe not socially but at least by the fact that I am human also.
There are so many variables to our perception of others. How can we be sure we're better or any more important than anyone else?
Who said "more important".
I'm just saying that I trust most of my opinions. That doesn't mean they can't change; it just means that I have confidence,I'm pretty sure that my judgements of myself are pretty valid, social classes and placements mean absolutely nothing to me. I'm equal to the "lowest" members of society, just because I make better choices, does not make me better.
Are you saying I should make a pedestal, on which to place myself above others?
Nope. I'm saying you shouldn't think that all ideas are equal.
I don't believe you do actually think that - I think you just like being seen as "humble".I'd like to think that I'm humble. I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. I didn't say all ideas were equal, I was pointing out that the perceptions are equal. My perception is as valid to me, as your's is to you.
Mmmmm. But perception is colored by reason and reasoning can be faulty.. for example, I see the agnostic position as faulty - even more faulty than the religious position, in fact.
A perception (however limited), is a perception. Education and reasoning can mold a perception, in the end it's still an individual perception.
Thanks for the support Pcunix!!! I must admit that both the believers and the atheists have their freaks amongst them but as an atheist I spot few of the atheistic freaks. The same will be true of the believers, they won't spot the same amount of freaks amongst themselves as we do but that's because we have more brains
)
Agnostic & Atheists (damn, I hate all of these names & titles) generally come across as more intelligent simply because they think for their own selves and refuse to be brainwashed by others that don't walk in their shoes. It gets old, with all of the people out there claiming to have unravelled the properties of the universe and know the so-called "only path" to enlightenment baloney... However, there are religionists out there that are quite intelligent, but if I had to put my money where my mouth is, I'd bet that most agnostics & atheists generally have slightly better cognitive function, for example. Please exclude me, however, because I'm smarter than all three (religionists, agnostic and atheists) because I'm none of the above, but my origin is top secret, of course. LMAO! Just kidding, I think...
In all seriousness, I couldn't imagine science without religion and religion without science and imagination without science-fiction, etc. It is all apart of the equation as the mind is a universe in itself; cheers!- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago0
(Turn to God if you want to start eradicating suffering).
Claire,
Turn to god - like Mother Teresa did?
"Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.”
― Mother Teresa, In the Heart of the World: Thoughts, Stories and Prayer
You would eradicate this "wonderful gift"? But I suppose Mother Teresa was not a "real" Christian....She wasn't... She was a true human being, being true to her own nature.
You completely miss the point of what Mother Teresa was saying. What comes out of suffering is a beautiful thing and sharing in someone's suffering is a beautiful thing.
I don't think someone being shot to death is a beautiful thing. Context is everything.The greatest example from history of God taking the greatest evil and bringing out of it the greatest good was at the cross of Jesus Christ. No one will ever experience any greater depth of evil than that exhibited at the crucifixion of Jesus. It was Satan’s best strike against God. Because of the cross, Satan was defeated. Christ rose from the grave and defeated Satan and evil. Now we can declare that God causes all things to work together for His glory (Rom. 8:28).
And what do Atheists have to offer as an answer, or solution?
NOTHING.
Oh, maybe education, since so many tout that as the answer to all our woes.
As IF the world is educate-able, with all the greed of the wealthy. The last thing they will want is to spend their money to educate the poor, and other workers. Who else will they have left to produce the millions they now enjoy?
Any other solutions people?Absolutely!
People have often asked me how the Holy Spirit talks to me and to others who love Him. Sometimes I will be inspired to write things, like what I have been doing. Then it can be confirmed with "coincidences".
I have been talking about the need for faith in order for Jesus to be able to heal someone on earth. Winston quoted Mother Teresa and both he and ATM jeered about my take on suffering.
Today I went to church and was quite astounded what one of the scriptures were. It was about Jesus' healing and the topic of suffering. There was even a Mother Teresa quote in the Bible Study section.
Here are excerpts:
"Jesus did not accept the view of suffering as a punishment from God. God does not do evil. God does good. What we see in the Gospel is not so much an answer to the question "why suffering?" as Jesus' response to suffering. He healed the sick and proclaimed the good news of salvation."
"The problem of suffering became an opportunity for Jesus to show what God is like...by the way He gave Himself to the sick, He reveals to us the compassion of God in the face of human suffering. The suffering of others is an opportunity for us, too (think of mother Teresa's quote. We may not be able to cure, but it always without our power to care. However, this is not easy because it means that instead of relieving someone's pain we have to be prepared to share it.
"If you want a lamp to keep burning, you must keep on putting oil into it." - Mother Teresa
(Taken from New Sunday and Holy Day liturgies - Year B by Flor McCarthy SDB)
I am afraid it is you who are trying to 're-interpret' what M Theresa said. She is clearly and uniquivocally talking about suffering as experienced within the passion of Christ, as magnification of her spiritual love if you like, I guess. This idea of suffering in conjunction with spirituality is a very christian, even very catholic, idea. You should go read a bit more before shooting from the hip with what you think about things you appear to know very little about.
You are just repeating what I said. Sharing in someone's pain is a beautiful thing because Christ shares in ours. It teaches us to become more compassionate and more able to love.
I think I'm right when saying I don't believe shooting someone to death is beautiful thing. Do you disagree with that?
- AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago0
(You have no evidence of anything)
getitrite,
Your statement is inaccurate as one does not have to be an eyewitness to have valid evidence. Secularists have tons of evidence of the causes and cures of different diseases, as well as evidence of the inability of claimed healings to do what they say they can do when rigorously tested. There is indisputable evidence that the only writings of the bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, and not a NT word comes from an eyewitness or contemporary of Jesus. The only evidence of Jesus and what he may have said is the worst kind of evidence, second and third hand accounts from biased sources.
Many people choose not to accept these second and third-hand biased accounts as reliable, and those same people generally require objective, repeatable proof of healing claims. That these people are reasonable about their belief should not be a cause of aggrevation - the theist needs to concentrate on offering objective, validatable evidence if the goal is to convert the rational-minded.Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition.
My goal is to not convert the rational-minded. I enjoy speaking about Jesus and most of the time I'm approached. It is true I wouldn't speak with such confidence about what Jesus said if it was just the Bible I had to tell me all about Jesus, then I wouldn't know that much. The Holy Spirit is alive and makes Himself known to all those who want Him.Amen, Claire. I would not be as confident defending Jesus by citing Bible verses. I can only speak from personal experience and the insights or inspirations from the Spirit that have empowered my life.
Absolutely. If I just had the scriptures, well, how can we say that Jesus really did say the things in the Bible?
(Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition)
Claire,
Well, duh! That is the entire point. As much as you demand over and over "prove it", I would think you would ask for at least as much for your beloved NT writings - since, as you point out, we have no idea what the originals had to say because there are no originals left.
Even assuming the copies are legitimate, the authors of the gospels are unknown and the gospels were written decades after the fact. The best that can be said is that these writings are handwritten (and mistake filled) copies of copies of copies of copies of second or third-hand accounts of oral traditions.
Hardly the makings of proper "proof".I don't need to prove anything to you. Scriptures alone cannot be proof of what Jesus said because, as you say, we weren't there to hear those words. In fact, why believe anyone in antiquity really said what they were purported to have said? It could all be made up!
(My goal is to not convert the rational-minded.)
Your goal is to convert the irrational?Lol. My goal is not to convert ANYONE.
It is just to plant a seed for people.
Some hubber called "Jomine" said, deep within this crazy thread: "Science can perfectly explain that there is no god."
LOL! Well, there went your credentials, as that is obviously a very flawed statement - in all senses of the term. All agnostics would obviously disagree, and most educated atheists would even be silent about that one, while the scientists just mumble to their self and pretend that was never said and the religious folks nearly defecate on their selves in response.
I'm not adhered to any organized religions, but I couldn't help but nearly fall out of my seat, when I read that hilarity of a statement. Thanks for the laugh, Josmine. You was kidding, right?I chose my name for bait, just for simple-minded folks like yourself that can't think of anything else; ha-ha! Thanks for taking the hook, although I'm throwing you back into the water; blah...
My goodness Claire sure has many feathers ruffled on here
(But then again ,if none ofit is true,everybodys happy -right? )
Wonder why..hmm
Do hope posters attack the problem and not the person ,theres no need for putdowns or inuendo'sWell she does come out with some incredible statements and does not appear to entertain the idea that she could ever be wrong. A dose of humility works wonders for gaining respect.
Humilty is a commendable attribute,but then so to is courage
in standing for what you believe.
Personally for me if I attack the problem ,or topic, I am able to respect the persons character.I may be wrong about many things but not the claim that Jesus is the son of God. Imagine how egotistical HE must have sounded to claim He was the son of God.
There are many people on this forum who claim the Jesus being the son of God is a fairy tale. They don't entertain the idea they may be wrong but I don't see you people call them out for their lack of humility.
It can be perceived as extremely arrogant to say for a fact that Jesus is not the son of God.You answered it yourself, purported to be said, made up.
I wasn't referring to the Gospels when I said it could all be made up. I said that things that ANYONE in antiquity, like Alexander the Great for example, said or did that could all be made up since you hold the the Gospels to the same standard.
Truth is, without the Holy Spirit, one could not know without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus said those things. Since I know Him, I can say He said those things with confidence. Not word for word, obviously.
The nutter has spoken.Lot many things about Alexander might be added up later, we cannot know. We can only be sure that there was a king like Alexander at that time of history who went to war with Persia, India and so many countries which changed the course of history. What exactly he said, or how exactly he did was anybodies' guess.
Regarding Jesus, who is supposed to be famous figure(multitudes followed him), we have absolutely nothing. No antiques, no sayings. About a man, we are not even sure lived, what he said was pure guess work. Just like the gospels authorship were thrust upon his supposed disciples, all sayings attributed him was put forth by clever charlatans, for their on end.
Truth is , anyone who wanted to gain authority over others had invoked the names of god and spirit. You might remember that Popes used to do it very frequently and which was a partial cause for protestant-inism.
As a side note; no spirits exist(by the very definition) and anyone who claims that they have seen or talked to non-existent beings are said to be hallucinating.Lol, there is far more written about Jesus than there was about Alexander the Great.
Historians cite the following evidence for Jesus’ existence:
• Archaeological discoveries continue to verify the Gospel accounts of people and places they record, the latest being Pilate, Caiaphas and the existence of first-century Nazareth.
• Thousands of historical writings document Jesus’ existence. Within 150 years of Jesus’ life 42 authors mention him in their writings, including nine non-Christian sources. During that same time period, only nine secular authors mention Tiberius Caesar; only five sources report the conquests of Julius Caesar. Yet no historian denies their existence.[53]
• Historians, secular and religious, readily acknowledge Jesus Christ has influenced our world more than any other person.
After investigating the Christ-myth theory, the great world historian Will Durant concluded that, unlike the gods of mythology, Jesus was a real person. [54]
Historian Paul Johnson states that all serious scholars acknowledge Jesus as real. [55]
Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “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.”[56]
http://www.y-jesus.com/index.php
How can you think that the NT isn’t even considered an historical document? And of course we have the writings of Tacitus, Josephus, (not the interpolated parts), Roman historian Phlegon, Suetonius, etc. To say there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus is asinine.
The main surviving sources testifying to Alexander the Great’s existence was written between three hundred and 5 hundred years after his death by Greek authors.
Here we have gospels that were written 30 years after the death of Jesus yet that isn’t considered historical evidence. Not to mention what outside accounts wrote about Jesus.
This is the problem I have with people. They believe people of antiquity existed with scant evidence but think that Jesus didn’t exist despite the wealth of information we have.
You can believe spirits don’t exist. It means nothing to me.First, the first non-christian writer Josephus, even if we concede that paragraph was written by him, was not a contemporary of Jesus. Most others wrote about Christians, not Jesus.(Christians obviously has an angle, they always said they would lie for jesus). There is no contemporary that has seen Jesus including St. Paul.
It is not Jesus, but Christians that have changed/affected history. At the supposed time of Jesus there were various christian sects like Nazarites, Essene,Gnostic..
Regarding Alexander there are various archaeological findings that suggest his existence. Again if such a person never lived historians will never be able to explain the post Alexander dynasties in Egypt and the turbulence in India/middle east....
Gospel is just like any other historical fiction, it mentions some real persons and places, but at times mistakes the geography and mentions things nobody could ever have known..If every historian dismissed figures of antiquity because of no contemporary sources, very few would be considered to have existed. What contemporary to you believe should have written about Jesus?
Let me prove my point. Let's take Pluto for example. People believe he existed but none of his records have been preserved and no contemporaries wrote about him. The earliest copies of his so-called writings are dated back to 900 AD.
I think you need to take in account the status of a person who had contemporaries writing about them. There were contemporaries of Caesar who wrote about him because he was obviously of high status. Who was Jesus? A carpenter and an obscure religious teacher. Should the Romans have written about such a figure?
If you claim that only Christians changed history, then you need to prove the founder didn’t exist and I don’t think you can.
“Again if such a person never lived historians will never be able to explain the post Alexander dynasties in Egypt and the turbulence in India/middle east....”
That’s like me saying if Jesus didn’t exist the calendar wouldn’t be based on BC and AD.
It’s just silly not to believe in Jesus’ existence.You write, "It’s just silly not to believe in Jesus’ existence."
It certainly seems likely that Jesus was a historical person. However, that isn't the important question. I can assume that he existed, but I don't believe any of the supernatural stories concerning him. I don't believe that Helen of Troy was conceived in a union of Zeus (in the guise of a swan) and the queen of Sparta, either.That is what I'm arguing. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed but no one can say that is evidence of His divinity.
Understand that I don't consider it a slam dunk that Socrates existed when I say that I agree with you. Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes could have created him as their mouthpiece. However, I don't disbelieve in the historicity of Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, or Aristophanes. I'm just not willing to say that I KNOW that they existed. I remain agnostic about almost everything.
Still, on my continuum of belief, with Profound Ignorance at one end and Certainty at the other, my disbelief concerning the divinity of Jesus sits nearer the Certainty end.
Dear Claire,
First, I have to say that I admire your hard work on the Hub in searching for the Truth, and I feel ashamed that I do so little.
Now allow me to ask a silly question;
what is the original meaning of the letters: B.C. and A.D. ?Sagittarius 2012, thank you. I enjoy researching and debating very much. What is the original meaning of Before Christ and Anno Domini? Just know that the dating system was devised by Dionysius Exiguus. Why do you ask?
I would like you to help me to separate facts from NT mythology, but first I need to ask you some silly questions to establish the same level of understanding. Some of my ideas are bit to controversial.
People like Philo of Alexandria... or His post humous disciple, St.paul, who never heard about him, his birth place or ministry.
Why you suddenly changed from Alexander to Pluto? I have no idea about this Pluto, so I cannot comment.
No? According to gospels, multitude followed him. At his birth scores of infants were killed. He did miracles and preached in jewish synagogues. He resurrected two people, including a roman. The whole jews condemned him in front of a roman procurator. Two Roman officials prosecuted him and he was again executed according to Roman law. At his death cemeteries opened.
Compare with jesus ben Pandeira or stada, we have some evidence of them, though they didn't do any of the above, but we have nothing regarding Jesus.
Just as said, there were sects like essenes, gnostics and so many with similar believes, but none of them claimed an earthly jesus. All these strated as off shoots of jewish religion.
You forgot the antiques unearthed by historians that corroborate Alexander.
Your calendar is divided into AD and BC by Dennis the little(Dionysius Exiguus) at the behest of Pope John (523-526)around 600 years after the supposed time of jesus."People like Philo of Alexandria... or His post humous disciple, St.paul, who never heard about him, his birth place or ministry."
There's a reason why they never heard of Him. Philo Judeaus was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher- not a historian like many critics claim. He was also an
Egyptian-born Jew who served as an ambassador to Caligula for Jewish rights in Alexandria- not Judea. It's not like they had e-mail and TV, you know.
"Why you suddenly changed from Alexander to Pluto? I have no idea about this Pluto, so I cannot comment."
I'm so sorry! I'm talking about PLATO!! Lol.
"No? According to gospels, multitude followed him. At his birth scores of infants were killed. He did miracles and preached in jewish synagogues. He resurrected two people, including a roman. The whole jews condemned him in front of a roman procurator. Two Roman officials prosecuted him and he was again executed according to Roman law. At his death cemeteries opened.
Compare with jesus ben Pandeira or stada, we have some evidence of them, though they didn't do any of the above, but we have nothing regarding Jesus."
Yes, and many of those multitudes were simple people. There were many religious leaders who performed miracles. You are also assuming that all records of Jesus should be preserved. How would we have accessed any writings of the resurrected Roman detailing His encounter with Jesus? Jesus was just another of thousands of people crucified. It was only until Christianity started gaining influence that people like Tacitus wrote about Him.
Honestly, I can't lay out my case better. I do believe the experts know what they are talking about.
I don't know where you got your idea that the Essenes didn't believe that Jesus existed. This is an Essene teaching:
1. Iesus seeing the multitudes, went up into a mountain: and when he was seated, the twelve came unto him, and he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said:
2. Blessed in spirit are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
3. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of God.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/sermon_on_the_mount.htm
What is written about the Essenes:
"Their way of life enabled them to live to advanced ages of 120 years or more and they were said to have marvelous strength and endurance. In all their activities they expressed creative love.
They sent out healers and teachers from the brotherhoods, amongst whom were Elijah, John the Baptist, John the Beloved and the great Essene Master, Jesus.
Membership in the brotherhood was attainable only after a probationary period of a year and three years of initiatory work, followed by seven more years before being given the full inner teaching."
http://www.thenazareneway.com/essenes_a … aching.htm
The Gnostics, too, believe in Jesus yet they believed He came to teach them Christ Consciousness. In other words, they can become a Christ themselves. Both the Essenes and Gnostics were occultists so obviously clash heavily with conventional Christianity. The Jews never acknowledged the The Apocryphal Texts, the esoteric texts, which the Essenes believed in, as sacred scripts and it was never written in Hebrew, only Greek and some extant Latin.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm
"You forgot the antiques unearthed by historians that corroborate Alexander."
And you forgot first century historians that corroborate the existence of Jesus.
"Your calendar is divided into AD and BC by Dennis the little(Dionysius Exiguus) at the behest of Pope John (523-526)around 600 years after the supposed time of jesus."
Yes, so?At least he or Josephus(who delighted in deprecating Herod for his cruelties) might have heard of the mass infanticide, or the warm welcome given to jesus before the festival/ or the mass condemnation(and mysterious) by jews the next day.
Yea, he might have been a mythological character, but what can anybody gain by inventing a philosopher?
The gospel authors still cold find out the few odd shepherds, and found out what the angel told them. They could also find out about the angel sent to joseph. They found about the infanticide nobody else noticed. They found out about what simon told of him..... They could even find out the dream of a cruel roman officer!!, yet nobody else noticed.
The christian experts!! And there is no mention of the geographical incongruencies and different accounts in different gospels.
I clumped all together because I don't have th patience to type all these again and again. Essenes was a sect that was before jesus and their teacher, the teacher of righteousness was crucified by Alexander Janneus 100years before Jesus.
Since you mentioned Tacitus I'll only say about him, as I've written about in multiple times, through out my last year.
I hope you are familiar with the passage.
1. Tacitus should have used Jesus, as That is his name, not Christus.
2. There was no different identification for christians from jews at that time.
3. Ther were not a single sect of Christianes at that time, they were gnostics, Narenes....
4.No one has noticed this particular passage till Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, noticed it first time word by word(He is credited with an antique hand, to make matters worse).
5. The extant manuscrpits of tacitus show the word christianos was tampered with, which might have been originally chrestianosWhy did Josephus write about Jesus at all if He didn't exist? Are we to have the complete works of Josephus?Are you saying none of what he ever wrote was ever lost?
You miss the point. Just because no contemporaries wrote about him does not mean he didn't exist, which a lot of people try and argue against the existence of Jesus.
Lol. You think the gospel writers could find the shepherds 60 years after the fact? And the Gospel authors did find out about the angel. It's written in the NT. Many of the details of the NT were known by eye-witnesses because they were alive at the time of the writings. Another thing to remember is that Jerusalem was razed to the ground in AD 70. Who knows how much was lost there??
No, if you read the quotes I posted earlier on, I intentionally quoted historians, including an atheist scholar,and not scholars for the very reason of you answering me with Christian scholars. Elaborate on the geographical incongruencies? As for the different accounts, the gospel writers who human. Discrepancies are to be expected. What would make me very suspicious is if the gospels were identical to one another. Then it would seem as if some of the gospel writers were just copying their accounts in their entirety. Witnesses at an accident scene, for example, are always going to have variances in their accounts.
Where did you get your sources from because I cannot find corroboration for your claim.
The Essenes believed in the NT characters. Take the Gospel of Paul, for example. This is a description of the Essene belief:
"Jesus the Nazarene was “consecrated to God” from birth. He was born under the vow of a Nazirite. He demonstrated that he knew how to “refuse the evil and choose the good.” He taught a blend of the Mosaic Torah and Greek philosophy, primarily that of Pythagoras. Pythagoras and his followers lived communally, drank no wine, were vegetarians, wore white garments, and let the locks of their hair grow long. They abhorred animal sacrifice, slavery, and conflict. Women were teachers in their academies. As Philo of Alexandria asserted, they had adopted the Mosaic vow of the Nazirites five hundred years before Jesus was born. They were, in essence, an earlier sect Nazarenes.
The Nazarene Way wasn’t simply a religion or a philosophy; it was a way of living. When either a man or a woman took the vow to become a Nazarene, they separated themselves from certain food, drink, and traditions. They were recognizable by their appearance – their long hair, their white garments, and their peaceful demeanor. There is nothing in the letters of Paul that suggests he had any appreciation for The Nazarene Way of Jesus. How puzzling that Paul’s gospel became orthodox and the gospel preached by James, Peter, John, and Jesus was rejected as an “early heresy” and virtually cleansed from the history of Christianity."
http://www.thenazareneway.com/The%20Gos … 20Paul.htm
Let's look at this again:
"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
What other Christ was put to death under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius? Do you know? What other founder was there of the Christian religion?
Then why does Suetonius, the Roman Historian who lived from 69 - 130 A.D. and who lived within the same time frame was Tacitus, corroborate what Tacitus said:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4"
That's immaterial. The ones that caused disturbances and were persecuted were those who worshipped Jesus as the son of God. Pliny the Younger, who lived from 63 - 113 A.D and tortured and killed Christians who refused to renounce Jesus, wrote:
"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger..." Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan.
So obviously the superstition was Jesus' divinity, according to Pliny.
First of all, it needs to be proven that Sulpicius forged the Tacitus passage. It is surmised that Sulpicius actually had Tacitus' lost portion of Tacitus' "Histories". 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.
Sulpicius wrote about the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and he never passes it off as anyone’s original account. Instead he clearly reported on what happened according to another source:
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.
Notice he says, “Titus is said…” We have the original of Tacitus’ account of what happened:
5.1] EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general.
Obviously Sulpicius did not forge this. It is not considered to and he most certainly wouldn’t report on someone else’s account if it was forged.
Sulpicius is known to have derived his accounts from Josephus and Tacitus, both having written about the destruction of the temple. However, Sulpicius clearly has not consulted Josephus’ account on what happened because of a glaring contradiction from Josephus:
4. However, I will not go to the other extreme, out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans, nor will I determine to raise the actions of my countrymen too high; but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with accuracy. Yet I shall suit my language to the passions I am under, as to the affairs I describe, and must be allowed to indulge some lamentation upon the miseries undergone by my own country; for that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it; and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us , who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple; Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have opportunity for repentance.
As you can see, Josephus thought Titus pitied the Jews while Tacitus said Titus was ready for war and certainly did not pity them. So clearly Sulpicius consulted Tacitus as a source.
A number of studies have shown that the language used by Severus in this passage is consistent with and may be indicative of Tacitus' style. (The first such study was by Jacob Bernays in 1861. More recently see Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Ed. M. Stern, Vol. 2, pages 64-67). For these kinds of reasons, most historians have concluded that the passage is indeed a fragment from Tacitus' lost writings.
The onus on is on you to prove Sulpicius forged Titus’ Annals 15:44.In one sentence, you say Jesus was an obscure fellow to be noted by anyone and in the other you say, the little known facts [like the shepherds], were easily available for the gospel writers.
Josephus could write almost all the cruelties of herod, still missed the infanticide. The jesus part of josephus is a christian fraud.
And the gospel writers who walked(supposed) with Jesus didn't know there is no "city" of Nazerath, nor there are any lakes for the pigs to commit suicide. The First gospel writer Mark hasn't heard of jesus resurrection and contemporary Paul didn't know much about Jesus/or his earthly abode either.
And the mathew and luke indeed appear copy of mark.
Try dead sea scrolls.
Good, so Claudius expelled those instigated by Jesus. Claudius:- AD 41-54. So after 10 years of his death, he instigated?
The name is Chrestus, meaning good man not christ.
People with name jesus and people who claimed to be christ(messiah) was dime a dozen,it was a time of many jewish revolt against rome.
And the sects of gnostics/essens.. all started before jesus with the same beliefs.
And no one deny Christians by the end of Ist century(Pliny). It is upto mid century there were no name "CHRISTIANS".
Christians were fraudsters, they believed in lying for the greater good(Eusebius). They destroyed libraries, and manipulated the ones existing.I didn’t say Jesus was so obscure so that no one would not have noted his existence! You are wondering why Philo didn’t write about him but he was based in Alexandria. The Romans wouldn’t have made a special effort to note him since he was just another rabble rouser criminal who was crucified. However, details could have been provided by eye-witnesses like the disciples and others. Do we have all the works of Josephus? And, no, the Jesus part of Josephus’ work is not a fraud. It is agreed that Jesus did write about Jesus. He called Jesus the “so-called Christ”. However, it is agreed that there is Christian interpolation in other passages because Jesus is referred to as “Christ”, which Josephus as a Jew would never refer Him as. Nazareth was considered so insignificant then that it wasn’t even included on a map. Archaeological evidence has since confirmed it did existence.
Excerpts from articles:
From USA today 2009
Christians and history buffs can thank archaeologists for a Christmas-week gift: more clues about life in the time of Jesus.
Archaeologists said Monday that they unearthed remains of the first dwelling inNazareth that dates to Jesus' era, a simple structure of two rooms and a courtyard, said Yardenna Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.
FAITH & REASON: A conversation about spirituality & ethics
Christians and history buffs can thank archaeologists for a Christmas-week gift: more clues about life in the time of Jesus.
Archaeologists said Monday that they unearthed remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth that dates to Jesus' era, a simple structure of two rooms and a courtyard, said Yardenna Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.
In Christian belief, Nazareth is where Jesus grew up and where an angel told Mary she would bear the child of God.
At the time, previous discoveries suggest, it probably was a hamlet of about 50 poor Jewish families. It is now the largest Arab city in northern Israel, with about 65,000 residents.
Archaeologists are not claiming it is the house where Jesus lived, Alexandre said, but a young Jesus may have played around the house with cousins and friends, she said. "It's a logical suggestion."
Alexandre's team found remains of a wall and a system that appeared to collect water from the roof.
Based on clay and chalk shards, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," she said. Jews used chalk vessels to ensure the ritual purity of the food and water kept in them.
The finding isn't a groundbreaking archaeological discovery, but it adds context to Jesus' life, said Jodi Magness, professor of archaeology and early Judaism at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
"Like all of us, Jesus was a product of his world," she said. "That's important for people who want to better understand Jesus' teachings."
"It's good to remember that Jesus grew up as a poor Jew in a poor town," said Stephen Chapman, associate professor of the Old Testament at Duke Divinity School. "His life was not about having great material possessions, but about living for God in this humble and modest way."
Contributing: The Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009 … reth_N.htm
Don’t care about the lakes and pigs. It’s irrelevant if that’s made up or not.
I’m not sure what you mean by Mark not knowing about the resurrection. It’s in the book of Mark. I suspect Paul didn’t write about Jesus’ earthly abode because he knew it was already known to the Christians anyway. Paul wrote letters to the church and was not a gospel writer.
Mark could have been considered a point of reference. If you come across text written about World War 2 and you learnt some more information, you could use the original as a point of reference and elaborate with the new information.
.
One of the Dead Sea scrolls is called the “Crucified Messiah Scroll”, which relates Jesus crucifixion:
Excerpt from page:
“In 1991 the world was astonished to hear that one of the unpublished scrolls included incredible references to a "Messiah" who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men. The scroll was translated by Dr. Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions of California State University. He declared, "The text is of the most far-reaching significance because it shows that whatever group was responsible for these writings was operating in the same general scriptural and Messianic framework of early Christianity." Although the original scroll team still claimed that there was no evidence about early Christianity in the unpublished scrolls, this new scroll totally contradicted their statements. This single scroll is earth-shaking in its importance. As Dr. Norman Golb, Professor of Jewish History at the University of Chicago said, "It shows that contrary to what some of the editors said, there are lots of surprises in the scrolls, and this is one of them."
This remarkable five-line scroll contained fascinating information about the death of the Messiah. It referred to "the Prophet Isaiah" and his Messianic prophecy (Chapter 53) that identified the Messiah as one who will suffer for the sins of his people. This scroll provides an amazing parallel to the New Testament revelation that the Messiah would first suffer death before He would ultimately return to rule the nations. Many scholars believed that the Jews during the first century of our era believed that, when he finally came, the Messiah would rule forever without dying. The exciting discovery of this scroll reveals that the Essene writer of this scroll understood the dual role of the Messiah as Christians did. This scroll identified the Messiah as the "Shoot of Jesse" (King David's father) the "Branch of David," and declared that he was "pierced" and "wounded." The word "pierced" remind us of the Messianic prophecy in Psalms 22:16: "They pierced my hands and feet." The prophet Jeremiah (23:5) said, "I will raise unto David a righteous branch."
The scroll also describes the Messiah as a "leader of the community" who was "put to death." This reference pointing clearly to the historical Jesus of Nazareth is creating shock waves for liberal scholarship that previously assumed that the Gospel account about Jesus was a myth. Jesus is the only one who ever claimed to be the Messiah who was crucified. The genealogies recorded in both Matthew and Luke's Gospels, reveal that Jesus was the only one who could prove by the genealogical records kept in the Temple that He was the lineage of King David as the "Son of Jesse." Since the tragic destruction of the Temple and its records in A.D. 70 it would be impossible for anyone else to ever prove their claim to be the Messiah based on their genealogical descent from King David. Additionally, the scroll identified the Messiah as "the sceptre" which probably refers to the Genesis 49:10 prophecy, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." This scroll confirms the historical truthfulness of the New Testament record about Jesus and His crucifixion. The evidence from the scroll suggests that the Jewish Essene writer acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was the "suffering Messiah" who died for the sins of His people.”
It appears as if the Essenes did believe in Jesus.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm
.
When one refers to instigation, it doesn’t automatically mean the person, Jesus in this case, had to be present. For example, extremists Muslims have jihad from the instigation of Mohammed. If Jesus was there, he would have been the instigator. The word for that is impulsor in Greek and instigation is impulsore, which is used in Suetonius’ account. Chrestus was a Greco-Roman name for a slave so the name was very common but Suetonius is giving the impression that the reader automatically knows what he is talking about. It was just another melee. Also, it makes no sense to me that the Jews would revolt on behalf of a gentile slave so they would be kicked out of Rome.
Another thing, Christus is often confused with Chretus.
Christian author Tertullian writes:
"Most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name...It is wrongly pronounced by you as "Chrestians" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate)... But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder." Apology, Chapter III
And Lactantius says:
"But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus." Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
Regarding your image, I don’t know what that means and I don’t know the context or where it was written in Tacitus’ Annals. You need to give me for information.
First of all, Tacitus never used the word Christian, or Chrestians, and even if he did, he lived 20 years into the 2nd century. He was born in the mid century so I’m sure by the time he wrote his Annals the word was in use.
Please provide sources next time.Yet we have datas of lesser known Jesus, like ben Sirach, ben Pandira, ben Ananias, ben Saphat, ben Gamala, ben Thebuth….
And how did the disciples know about stuff only mary might have known, and like the shepherd, not even her(And the temptation by devil)?
You might have no problem in telling me mount from which Jesus saw the whole world.
And regarding romans, they usually kept the records well and crucifications are near public places and roads, that the crucified serve as an example for the would be rubble rousers.
And who all are the eyewitness disciples who wrote gospels?
And why this eyewitness couldn't agree even on the lineage of jesus, yet could find the one of the cruelest roman officer's wife's dream, nor they could agree who all met jesus after resurrection.
.
“"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man , for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He[/b]was the Christ [/b]; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians , so named from him, are not extinct at this day”
The whole paragraph appear as forgery, especially since there was no tribe of Christians then.
Now the so called Christ part, who the Christ is also given just below, Jesus the son of Damneus"
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY of Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)
How come st.paul, old testament, Talmud heard nothing about Nazerath?
City is not a place were 50 families reside. Then if only 50 families(they should be related or having good relations), they sure would have heard Mary getting pregnant before marriage miraculously, the temple incident and all, yet they want to throw him down the mountain, but where is the mountain?
Never heard anybody saying that, not even any news channels. It is always said that the mullahs(living/immediately after death[the incident instigated]) like laden instgated.
We are dealing with 1st centuary were chrestus means good man a term commonly ued for free men and slaves.
Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, most prominently in the Damascus Document
That is the ultraviolet photo of a word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy), which shows chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand.
Sorry for being obscure, I think you didn’t see the Pliny in brackets, I was referring to your reference to Pliny.
And Tacitus didn't use?
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.
Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight."
– Tacitus
And here is Pliny
"Having never been present at any trials concerning those persons who are Christians, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them."
So the whole passages regarding Christians are forgery by chritians!!Jomine,
What do you think about this fragment coming from Josephus, will you consider it as reliable source of information regarding Christ?
James was the bishop of Jerusalem, the oldest of Jesus' half-brothers and early recognized as the most prominent overseer of the Jerusalem Church. He was known as an unusually righteous man and surnamed James the Just by his countrymen.
http://www.giveshare.org/library/josephus/ant-20.html
“Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF TWENTY-TWO YEARS.
FROM FADUS THE PROCURATOR TO FLORUS.
CHAPTER 9.
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN;
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];”
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];
and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. “Read my comment about Josephus I wrote to Jomine.
Claire, can you be more specific, I'm not quite sure to which fragment of your comment are you referring to.
James was the bishop of Jerusalem, the oldest of Jesus' half-brothers and early recognized as the most prominent overseer of the Jerusalem Church. He was murdered by Jews in the year 62 A.D., almost 30 years after Christ died.
Dear Claire, would you like to create chronology of the early Christians, we would all add dates to it with reasonable references e.g.:
Year 4 BC - Herod the Grate died
0 AD - Christ was born
12 AD - Christ in the Herod's Temple
30 - Christ baptized by John
- John the Baptist beheded
33. - Christ crucified
- Stephen stoned by Paul the Pharisee
- John takes Mary to Ephez
- Paul follows John
62. - James stoned by the Jews
- Peter goes to Rome
- Paul follows Peter
64. - Greate fire of Rome
- Peter crucified
- Paul leaves Rome
66. - Christians of Judea fled to Pella
66. - conflict broke out between Greeks/Idumeans and Jews in Jerusalem
66 - Nero in Jerusalem, converts to Judaism
68. - Nero committed suicide
- Paul returns to Rome and is beheaded
70. - Titus besieged the city of JerusalemYour chronology is fine.
You asked me to be more specific. This is what you quoted:
"If the part… “so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.” was actually referring to son of Damneus, it should have read"
So you think that Jesus, the so-called Christ and brother of James, was not Jesus of Nazareth but Jesus, son of Damneus?No Claire, I don't think so.
James the Just was the youngest son of:
Joseph II Phasael - the Idumean
and Salampsio (Salome - the Herodian)
James was also half-brother of Christ, so called Jesus, whose mother was Miryam (Mary) Al Imran.
Claire, if you agree with my chronology, then why the gospel of Matthew is accusing Herod the Grate (who, at the time when Christ was born, was dead for four years), of ordering massacre of boys in Bethlehem?
Are you interested to know where the story of massacre came from?
What has that got to do with Jesus Damneus?
Are you interested to know where the story of massacre came from?
0 AD did spring out at me and I should have pointed this out but Jesus was actually considered to be born in the 4th century BC. I obviously didn't catch on why you posted the chronology for me.
Lazy now so I'm going to provide you with excerpts.
It is surmised that Jesus was actually born about 3-1 B.C despite many scholars believing Herod died in 4 BC.
Josephus mentions that Herod died in the interval between a Lunar eclipse and the following Passover. For centuries this has been thought to be the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C., and this evidence of astronomy has had a large part in establishing the dogma that Herod died that year.
Recent calculations, however, showed that this eclipse was only partial (40 percent total and fairly hard to detect), and that the events narrated by Josephus to have occurred between this eclipse and the Passover that followed are impossible to fit in if one takes the 4 B.C. date. The total eclipses of January 9-10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C., however, eliminate these problems.
To determine which lunar eclipse was the correct one, one needs to know that lunar eclipses happen ONLY when there is a full moon and ONLY with a frequency of three times a year. The eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C. is listed as eclipse number 1,860 in Theodor Oppolozer's Cannon of Eclipses (Dover, New York, 1962). That eclipse -- according to John Pratt -- was listed as TOTAL for 51 minutes near midnight and centered over 15 degrees east longitude -- which is PERFECT for having been viewed in Jerusalem. The eclipse of August 5 was over the Pacific Ocean and not visible in Jerusalem, while the one of December 29 was only partial.
Ernest Martin notes that
"the eclipse of Josephus had to have been that of January 9/10, 1 B.C. All the events mentioned by Josephus fit quite comfortably with this eclipse, and ONLY with this eclipse....In fact, everything fits beautifully in other ways. There is a Jewish document called the Megillath Taanith (Scroll of Fasting) which was composed, initially, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This scroll mentions two semi-festival days during which no mourning was permitted. One is Kislev 7. The month of Kislev corresponds in most years with our December. The other commemorative day was Schebat 2. This month answers to our late January or early February. No one knows why these two days of feasting are commemorated yet they must have been days of joy ordained before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. What did they honor?"
In the temple of Augustus at Ankara, an inscription was found referring to a census in the year 8 B.C. The relationship of this "tax call" with the enrollment of Joseph and Mary is an UNFOUNDED conjecture, since it would apply only to Roman citizens. And it is even more conjectural to imagine that Mary would have had to travel so far, because the taxes would apply only to Joseph.
On the other hand, historians have identified a combination of a census and an oath of allegiance that would have effectively involved Mary and Joseph -- done between the years 3 and 2 B.C. -- as the result of an imperial decree related to the bestowal of the title "Pater Patriae" on Augustus by the Senate on February the 5th of the year 2 B.C. Josephus recorded that nearly 6000 Pharisees refused to take the oath, approximately one year before Herod died, and Orosio, a historian of the 5th Century, CLEARLY links this oath with the enrollment of Joseph and Mary:
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world...that first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time through the participation in the census, were made part of one society (quoted by John Pratt)."
Later, Orosio identifies the time of the census using two Roman systems that agreed among themselves, implying a lower limit for the death of Herod on the basis of this evidence of 2 B.C.
This census would have included Joseph and Mary even though they were not Roman citizens. Being of royal lineage ("of the Houses of David"), both Joseph and Mary would have had to go specifically to Bethlehem to enroll. Augustus' decree required that all adults pledge their good will to Caesar, and the complete enrollment was presented to him as part of the celebrations.
What astronomical events, possibly in the years 3 or 2 B.C., might have been related to the Star of Bethlehem? A nova -- the unexpected, sudden brightening of a star from invisibility into a bright object for a period of days or weeks -- has been suggested. But there is no historical record of such a nova, nor is it clear what a nova's astrological significance would be. Origen himself suggested a comet, for comets appear sporadically, move, and can even seem to point down to the earth. But the recorded comets around this time, even Halley's Comet in 12 B.C., were not very impressive; astrologically, they were considered ominous. Meteors and fireballs are even less likely candidates.
Conjunctions of planets have also long been considered good possibilities. A conjunction is a close apparent approach between two celestial objects. Technically speaking, a conjunction occurs at the moment when both objects have the same celestial longitude; one is due north of the other. The closer the objects, the more visually impressive the event and the more significant astrologically. In 3 B.C. and 2 B.C., there was a series of close conjunctions involving Jupiter, the planet that represented kingship, coronations, and the birth of kings. In the Judean world Jupiter was known as Sedeq or "Righteousness," a term also used for the Messiah.
On September 14, 3 B.C., and on February 17 and May 8 in 2 B.C., Jupiter the King planet stood next to Regulus the brightest star in Leo, which also represented Royalty. Then came a climax to the display. On June 17, 2 B.C., Venus and Jupiter -- the two brightest planets in the Solar System -- appeared to collide. They stood an incredible 1/50th degree apart and seemed to fuse into one immense ball of light. This was an unprecedented event. This exceptionally rare spectacle could not have been missed by the Magi. But that was not all. On August 27 in 2 B.C. there was a grand meeting of the planets in Virgo. Jupiter and Mars were only 1/7th degree apart and close at hand were Mercury and Venus standing together in the glare of the rising sun.
In fact, we have seen here only the highlights of an impressive series of planetary motions and conjunctions fraught with a variety of astrological meanings, involving all the other known planets of the period: Mercury, Mars, and Saturn. The astrological significance of these impressive events must surely have been seen by the Magi as the announcement of the impending birth of a great king of the Judeans.
But if the planet Jupiter was the Star of Bethlehem, or was a component of the events that triggered the visit by the Magi, how do we view the final appearance of the Star on their journey to Bethlehem? It would have been in the southern sky, though fairly high above the horizon. Could the Star have stopped over Bethlehem? The answer is yes. The word "stop" was used for what we now call a planet's "stationary point." A planet normally moves eastward through the stars from night to night and month to month, but regularly exhibits a "retrograde loop." After it passes the opposite point in the sky from the sun, it appears to slow, come to a full stop, and move backward (westward) through the sky for some weeks. Again it slows, stops, and resumes its eastward course.
This is caused by the orbits of Jupiter and the earth as the earth and Jupiter "take up the slack," as it were, in their orbital differences. This gives the earth sky viewer the illusion that Jupiter is reversing its movement.
The conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter in 3 and 2 B.C. around the fixed star Regulus were impressive and unique celestial phenomena. Since the ephemeris of Brian Tuckerman were published in the mid-60's, allowing the experts to know this fact, Jupiter/Venus have been the preferred alternative for the star of Bethlehem in the mind of many astronomers and historians."
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/herodsdeath.html
Since Herod ordered the killing of babies up to two years old, 3/2 BC sounds the most probably date for Christ's birth.
Let me guess...Moses right?Claire, you ask "What has that got to do with Jesus Damneus?"
- nothing Claire, not even the name Jesus, because Christ name in his native Galilean-Arameic language was Isa, what translates in to Hebrew Esau, not Jesus. Check the Talmud if you don't believe me.
Christ was not a Jew; in John 8 the Pharisee Jews mistakenly called him Samaritan:
NT John 8:48
" 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan",
but in fact Christ was Nazarene from Capernaum in Galilee, and Galillea was separated from Judea by Samaria.
In fact, all Christ disciples except Judas were Galileans not the Jews.
Nazarene, writes St. Jerome in the letter to St. Augustine, were known as Minaeans; and Minaeans we know as Minoans. You know Claire who were the Minoans; one of Job's visitors, Zpohar, was the king of Minaeans/Minoans.(Septuagint - Job 2 and 42).
Youl see Claire, before the time when Israel was relised from the captivity in Egypt Minoan Civilization existed.
“The Minoan (Minaean) civilization was a Bronze Age civilization which arose on the island of Crete. The Minoan culture flourished from approximately from 2700 to 1600 BC. on the Islands of Crete and Santorini, and after eruption of Thera they moved to Southern Arabia and flourished there until beginning of our era - Christ Era.
Minoans were traders, and their cultural contacts reached far beyond the island of Crete and Santorini — from present Norway to Southern Arabia.
The Minoans were primarily a mercantile people engaged in overseas trade.
Their culture, from 1700 BC onward, shows a high degree of organization. “
BTW - At that time Minoans/Minaeans had a king whose name was Sophar.
He was mentioned in the Book of Job as one of Job’s friends.
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm
Job Chapter 2 (Septuagint)
11 Now his three friends having heard of all the evil that was come upon him, came to him each from his own country: Eliphaz the king of the Thaemans, Baldad sovereign of the Saucheans, Sophar king of he Minaeans: and they came to him with one accord, to comfort and to visit him.”
“Concentration of wealth played a large role in the structure of Minoan/Minaean society.
Multi room constructions were discovered in even the ‘poor’ areas of town, revealing a social equality and even distribution of wealth.
Furthermore, no evidence exists for a Minoan army, or for Minoan domination of peoples outside Crete.
Few signs of warfare appear in Minoan art. "Although a few archaeologists see war scenes in a few pieces of Minoan art, others interpret even these scenes as festivals, sacred dance or sports events" (Studebaker, 2004, p. 27).”
There was also another peacefull Bronse Age civilisation which was called Edom, and Job, whom Sophar king of he Minaeans visited was their king.
Back to Christ times,
Claire, if you look at the map of Transjordan in the Christ times, you will see that:
Idumea (Edom) with Hebron as Capital City,
Judea,
Samaria
and Galilee
are all different countries ruled by Herodian Dynasty ( Herod's father was Idumean (Edomite) and his mother Cypros was Arabian).
There is a nice map of this region in this article:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/p … pella.html
Now let's look at the time of Herod's death.
But first I have to say that I'm amazed with you passion in search for Truth, so you deserve to know some truth.
In the book, Herod the Grate by famous historian and biographer Michael Grant, (author to whom you have made several references in your previous posts), you will find the date when Herod died, and it is March/April of 4 BC.
If, according to your research, Christ was born in the year 2 or 1 BC. it still leaves us with the gap of 2 - 3 years. So the historical references from the Gospel of Matthew are very doubtful.
In addition in NT Luke 2 we read:
"Jesus Presented in the Temple
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
So Christ was not taken to Egypt but to Jerusalem, in to the Herod's Temple, and from there to Galilee.
However, because niter Matthew or Luke were apostles of Christ both accounts are doubtful.
The time of Christ birth was well confirmed by Tertullian in his book Answer to the Jews (198 AD).
In his book
AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS (written in 198 AD)
Tertullian wrote:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertulla.htm
Chapter 8. Of the Times of Christ's Birth and Passion,
and of Jerusalem's Destruction.
"Let us see, moreover, how in the
forty-first year of the empire of Augustus,
when he has been reigning for xx and viii years
after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born.
(And the same Augustus survived, after Christ is born, XV (15) years;
and the remaining times of years
to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us
to the xl first year, which is the xx and viiith
of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra.)
There are, (then,) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months:
(whence are filled up lxii hebdomads and an half:
which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months
on the day of the birth of Christ....."
O.K.
We know that that Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus,
Emperor of the Roman Empire died 19 August AD 14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
So, if form the year 14 (the year when Augustus died),
we take away the XV (15) years, which according to Tertullian Augustus survived after Christ is born, then we can see clearly that Christ was born in the first year of our era, or correctly said: His Era (AD - Anno Domini/ the year of the Lord ).
I'm bit confused with the second part of Tertullian's explanation:
"There are, (then,) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months: (whence are filled up lxii hebdomads and an half:
which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months on the day of the birth of Christ....."
Claire, I wonder if you know Latin numerals and can help me to figure out the exact date when Christ was born, base on what Tertullian have written.
Now let's go back to the story of Massacre of the Innocent and gospel of Matthew inspiration for this story.
No Claire, wrong guess, it wasn't Moses but Joab, the commander of Davids army who was responsible for this Massacre, but I'm out of time now so I will write about it in the next post.
Claire, this story was the base for the made up story about Massacre of the Innocents an episode of mass infanticide by the King of Judea, Herod the Great that appears in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16-18, which in fact never happened.
Bible Old Testament
1 Kings 11 (English Standard Version)
14 And the LORD raised up an adversary against Solomon,
HADAD the EDOMITE. He was of the royal house in EDOM.
15 For when DAVID was in EDOM, and Joab the commander of the army
went up to bury the slain, he struck down every male in Edom
16 (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off
every male in Edom).
17 But Hadad fled to Egypt, together with certain Edomites of his father’s servants, Hadad still being a little child.
18 They set out from Midian and came to Paran and took men with them
from Paran and came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him
a house and assigned him an allowance of food and gave him land.
19 And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave
him in marriage the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen.
20 And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes
weaned in Pharaoh’s house. And Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among
the sons of Pharaoh.
21 But when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers and
that Joab the commander of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh,
"Let me depart, that I may go to my own country."
22 But Pharaoh said to him,
"What have you lacked with me that you are now seeking to go
to your own country?"
And he said to him, "Only let me depart."
Claire, do you know what has happened next?
This time continuation of Hadad story, however not from the Bible but
from archeology:
Tel Dan Stele, c. 840 BCE
First extra-biblical mention of the House of David
"[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] King of Israel... And [i] slew [the king] of the house of David"
Date: c. 840 BCE
Current Location: Skirball Museum, Jerusalem, Israel
Language and Script: Aramaic; alphabetic.
The most notable feature of the inscription is the use of the expression “House of David” (Hebrew, byt dwd) in line 9, making it the earliest known extra-Biblical mention of David and the dynasty he founded.
This is crucial for corroborating the Biblical account, since many scholars have at least minimized the importance of the actual David, if not relegated him to fictional myth.
The expression “House of David” is used repeatedly in the Bible for the Davidic Dynasty.
The text reads:
1. [ ] and cut [ ]
2. [ ] my father went up [against him when] he fought at [ ]
3. My father lay down; he went to [his ancestors?]. Then the king of Is-
4. rael entered Qedem (EDOM) in my father’s land. Hadad made me king.
5. Hadad went in front of me and I departed from [the] seven [ ]
6. … of my kingdom, and I killed [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou [sands of cha]
7. riots and thousands of horses. [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and [i] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram, kin]
9. g of the House of David. I set [ their towns into ruins and turned
10. their land into [desolation … ]
11. other [ … and Jehu ru]
12. led over Is[rael … and I laid ]
13. siege to [ … ]
(Text edition: Biran and Naveh 1995. From Mordechai Cogan. Anchor Bible. p.505-507.)
Jomine and Sagittarius 2012
You two may have noticed that you have posted an enormous amount outlining your argument. I now have to debate both of you. It's going to take me about a week to get through it all. I've already spent hours on just one comment. So bear with me and my computer's crashing so maybe longer.
I' ll be back. I'll start on them later today.Don’t waste your time Claire, because whatever you bring is not going to convince me, as I’ve gone through this so many times and now trying to forget it.
The reasons I say so is
1. The debates about existence are going through for almost a century, but nobody is able to convince the other side.
2. There are no eyewitness accounts about Jesus.
3. There are so many gospels other than the accepted versions that tell different stories.
4. The accepted versions have too many errors(including geographical), in congruencies (Including the listing of thoughts of people) and editing over centuries to be taken as true.
5. The epistles of Paul don’t take Jesus as an earthly figure.
6. There are no-non Christian testimonies/historical attestation of accounts of gospels and the available ones are forgeries (If there were real evidences’, there need be no forgeries)(There are more data available about lesser known personalities, in spite of the fact that vast number of books and libraries were destroyed by Christians.
7. The gospel writers made too many mistakes/out of context quoting in trying to quote OT, to say their god is the messiah.
8. There were many sects similar to Christians at the supposed time of Jesus, and there never was a single sect of Christians.
9. The Jesus story is no different from the myriad of god stories before.
10. There are no historical attestation and, in congruencies/discrepancies about the so called disciples of Jesus.
11. The “traditions” followed by Christians (including supremacy of Rome) are later additions, for wider acceptance, subjugation of populace, money and power.
12. There was competition by rival magicians like Simon, so the supposed miracles by Jesus were common in that era.
Now whether there was a man named Jesus really doesn’t matter, because there are no gods/miracles. The supposed time of Jesus was a time when science was almost nonexistent. Every unexplainable phenomenon, people attributed to divine/devil. God is a concept created out of man’s need for a parent, explanation and stem from his fear and hope. For a rational and logical man, there is no god, for a normal man who struggle with the daily melee of existence, god is a psychological support, just like the crutches for a handicapped, and he creates one(evident from the fact that nobody know, or can articulate what god is).
To quote Democritus "In reality there is nothing but atoms and space", rest are all opinions.
Sorry for being haphazard and incomplete, for I’m trying to be brief.No, no, I will continue with the debate. I'm very interested in addressing all of your points. Remember, there are others following the debate who may be interested in our answers.
Then you have to do only one thing, find out a way by which the existence of Christ and his words(his own true words, not what anybody else thinks) be known, without the aid of a nonexisting entity (if i may be permitted to be discourteous, without your hallucination), that anybody can verify.
You can't verify someone's relationship with the Holy Spirit. I'm interested in debating the things that have evidence like if Nazareth existed or not, etc.
Ok, find out whether a CITY of nazerath existed at biblical times and where the mountain precipice is situated in Nazerath and tell me.
Regarding your holy spirit, kirstenblog has asked the relevant question, answer it if possible.
[or shall I be more specific, what makes your claim distinct from a psychotic's?]Jomnie, the city of Nazareth is not the only problem with Gospel according to Matthew from historian point of view.
Even bigger problem is accusation of Herod the Great that he had order the Massacre of Innocent boys in Bethlehem.
Modern biographers of Herod, like historian Michael Grant, doubt that the event took place.
Herod the Great was the best king Jews ever had.
HEROD THE GREAT:
AN ARABIC KING OF ISRAEL
http://www.maat.it/livello2-i/erode-i.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ … eller-text
Herod the Great, who reigned over Palestine from 37 to 4 B.C., is famous as he was accused to have achieved the presumed massacre of the innocents.
The only prosecutor was the evangelist Mattew (2.1-18).
Even ignoring the objections referring to the year and the place of birth of Jesus, we can assert that:
- Herod had not the authority to sentence death without
the approval of the Sanhedrim and in some important cases without the explicit approval of the Romans.
- If Herod had issued such an order Rome would have stopped him, if not for humaneness, certainly to avoid breaches of the peace.
Herod was a great king, enemy of the Hebraic religious integralisme, continuator of the work of Alexander the Great: a common culture for the West and the East without ethnic or religious distinctions.
For this vision of him and for his Arabic origin he was slandered by the Jewish tradition that transformed him
in a bloodthirsty monster.
Locality: Palestine
Times: 73 - 4 B.C.
The origin
Herod the Great was born about 73 B.C. by Idumean (Edomite) father, Antipater, and by an Arabic mother, Cyprus, indigenous of Petra, capital of the Nabataeans.
Idumaea, a region between the reign of Judah and
the desert of the Negev, had been conquered by the Jews and its inhabitants were converted forcedly to Judaism at the times of the Hansomean king John Hyrcanus I.
"Hyrcanus initiated a military campaign against the Idumeans in the Negev near Eilat. During this campaign Hyrcanus conquered Adora, Marisa and other Idumean towns (Ant.13.257).
Hyrcanus then instituted forced conversions on the Idumeans."
Herod had three brothers (Joseph, Fasael, Ferora) and one sister, Salomè.
Antipater: the father of Herod.
Herod's father, an Idumean nobleman, was councellor
of the Jewish king Hyrcanus II.
Hyrcanus, of the dynasty of the Hasmonean, had come to the throne in 67 B.C. at the death of his mother Alessandra.
The younger brother Aristobulos had begun a civil war
in order to get hold of the throne, succeeding to drive
Hyrcanus out of Jerusalem.
Then Hyrcanus had asked help to Arab Nabateans
and to Pompeius the Great....
In the 63 B.C. Pompeius freed Jerusalem, gave the throne back to Hyrcanus and sent to Rome Aristobulos and his sons.
Antipater, who at the time of Queen Alexandra had
been governor of the native Idumaea, immediately
took the part of Hyrcanus and it helped him in his
relationship with the Romans.
He was friend of Pompeius and at the right moment
of Cesar, who named him epitropos of the Judah,
a title not official but that recognized to the Idumean
one an authority deriving from the Romans.
The beginnings of Herod
In 47 B.C. Antipater named Herod the Idumean governor of the Galilee and Fasael, his brother, governor of Jerusalem.
Herod manifested himself decided in fighting marauders
and put Ezechia and his band to death.
The Sanhedrim, dominated by the conservatives,
did not appreciate of having been supplanted in death
sentences and put Herod under accusation .
Sextus Caesar, the Roman governor of Syria, defended Herod and entrusted him with an important task, perhaps he named him governor of Coele Syria and Samaria.
The Roman civil war
In 44 B.C. Julius Caesar was killed and Cassius Longinus, one of the conspirators, went to Syria in order to collect troops and money for the civil war.
Antipater and Herod sided with Cassius.
Herod saw his powers widened and had at his disposal a fleet and an army.
In 43 B.C. Antipater was killed by Malico, exponent of the conservative antiroman opposition.
Malico was killed at Tyre by a group of Romans, perhaps pushed by Herod.
Herod and Marc Antony
In the autumn of 42 B.C. Antony and Octavianus defeated Brutus and Cassius, who killed themselves.
Herod, really skillful, ran to Ephesus to the winner and
obtained his friendship, in addition to the title of tetrarch,
that was given to Fasael too.
Antigonus and the Parthians
In the 40 B.C. Antigonus, the son of Aristobulos, younger brother of Hyrcanus, formed an alliance with the Parthians who invaded Palestine and removed Hyrcanus from the throne, to whom ears were cut. Hyrcanus, due to his impairment could have claimed the throne no more. Fasael was captured and killed while he was dealing with the Parthians.
Herod escaped in the fortress of Masada. Then, entrusted the defense to his brother Joseph, he went towards Petra, but the king of the Nabateans Malco did not want to receive him. Then Herod went to Egypt at Cleopatra, then to Rhodes, to Brindisi and finally to Rome at Antony.
King without reign
At the end of 40 B.C. Antony convinced the Roman Senate to name Herod king of Judah, allied and friend of the Roman people.
In the spring of 39 B.C. Herod disembarked at Ptolemais (Acco, Acri) on the coast of high Galilee. It gathered an army, freed his brother Joseph besieged at Masada and began the fight against Antigonus.
In February of 37 B.C. he began to besiege Jerusalem. After five months, with the aid of the Roman troops of Sosius, he entered the city. The Romans took Antigonus, who later was made killed by Antony. Herod had his reign.
The land to the peasants
To the peasants without land Herod gave in rent immense portions of his lands with the obligation to cultivate them. He reclaimed lands, made canalizations for the irrigation, helped the constitution of model farms . He yielded cleared lands to the peasants who had lost their land. Herod's agricultural politics had great succes and Octavianus gave to Herod other regions outside his reign.
Expropriation of the noble ones
Herod found lands and the resources in order to value them, expropriating the aristocracy that had supported Antigonus and taking control of all the assets of the Asmoneans.
Herod in transactions
Herod earned a lot renting from Cleopatra cultivations of balsamina, used for the preparation of ointments, incenses, cosmetics.
He exploited the deposits of asphalt of the Dead Sea.
He carried out, like his father, activity of banking type lend money to principles and kings.
In 12 B.C. he rented from Augustus the copper mines of Cyprus.
The constructions
Herod built palaces and castles of Jerusalem, Jericho, Sepphoris in Galilee, Bethrampta in Perea, of Ascalona, the Herodion, the fortress of Hyrcania. he made many works in order to render the fortress of Masada safer.
He founded the city of Antipatrides, today Ras el' ain, and of Fasaelides, today Chirbet fas'il.
He constructed sports centers, theatres, aqueducts, roads, ports.
In 27 B.C. he began the reconstruction of Samaria, called Sebaste.
In 22 B.C. he began the reconstruction of Caesarea and of its port, inaugurated in 9 B.C.
Towards 20 B.C. it began the reconstruction of the temple of Jerusalem, inaugurated in 10 B.C.
The public order
He fought against the marauders of the desert. He exterminated the gangs that wandered about in the frontier regions.
Friend of Octavianus
Antony was defeated by Octavianus at Actium the 2 September of 31 B.C. Herod readily helped the governor of Syria engaged in repressing a putsch of followers of Antony. Then he went to Rhodes in order to meet Octavianus and to put himself at his service. He obtained the confirmation of his reign and had back the lands that Cleopatra had taken. Moreover Samaria , the cities of Ippo and Gadara, and some coastal cities were entrusted to him. The guard of Cleopatra, constituted by 400 Galatians, became his personal guard.
Herod changed the name of Samaria in Sebaste, sebastòs in Greek means Augustus.
Shows
Making to horrify the conservative Hebrew he promoted athletic shows and circensian games. Beginning from 28 B.C. he introduced the quinquennial games, like the Olympic games.
Protector of Hebrews of Diaspora
The Hebrews of the Ionia had demanded to the Romans of being exempted from the military service, of considering to all the effects festive the saturday and therefore not to be cited in judgment in such day, of not being forced to assume expensive public office, etc. Herod in 14 B.C. addressed his friend Agrippa and succeeded to obtain what the Hebrews asked.
Difficult relationships with the Pharisees
In 6 B.C. he proceeded against the Pharisees who had vaticinated that, with the birth of the Messiah, the reign of Herod would come to the end.
In 4 B.C. some young people, pushed by the Pharisees, pulled down the Eagle that Herod had placed at the entrance of the temple of Jerusalem. He immediately ordered that they were arrested and condemned.
Death of Herod
At the end of March or at the first days of April of 4 B.C. Herod died after a long disease, and it was years before Christ was born.I told you, I'll get back to you on the debate. I think you should stop wondering why people claim to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit until you are serious in having the same relationship.
OK
No Claire, I'm not wondering about the claim, what I'm wondering is, why you are not showing the same enthusiasm, you show in proving the historicity of Jesus, in showing us, why your claim be given any merit or why you should be taken seriously(or Why you should not be considered a raving lunatic).
If you are so inspired by the holy spirit, why you have to go and refer, why didn't your spirit directly let you know?
Or in a way it's easier for you to understand,
what is your criteria for separating religion from superstition?(other than,"what I believe is religion, and what my neighbour does, is superstition)Lol, what would be the best way for me to show you the Holy Spirit over the Internet? Should I ask Him to knock a book off your shelf at 8 'o clock this evening? If I was a Satanist, Satan most certainly would do that but I am not a Satanist.
You are asking the most ridiculous questions. God is not a genie. He wants us to use our own initiative and our skills. He provides guidance in life and not make me debate by automatic writing.
The New Testament does portray Jesus as He is. How does the Holy Spirit manifest in my life? When something crops up and I am not sure what to do I leave it in His hands. Whatever is right for me happens and what doesn't is prevented from happening. You only see this in retrospect. Another way are "coincidences". As I said, I spoke to ATM about suffering, Emile about Jesus' healing and Winston's quote on Mother Teresa. That Sunday at church, the theme was "Christ The Healer (I've got the pew leaflet in front of me now). The issue of suffering also came up in that Jesus uses suffering to show us what God is like and that is compassionate. Jesus was motivated by compassion to heal the sick. The Mother Teresa quote Winston gave me was about what she said about suffering: ""This is perfect joy - to share in the sufferings of the world as Christ did." ...
In the pew leaflet I got the next day had a Mother Teresa quote. These things aren't by chance. This is how the Holy Spirit communicates with His people.
Sometimes you get these coincidences at don't know who it is from. It could be from Satan because he loves to masquerade as God. Ten years ago, I tried looking for the book, "The Amityville Horror" at the local library. I was very fascinated with that case. The Librarian said the computers were down so they didn't know. So I tried again and they said there only copy was missing. Looked at another library and while they were looking it up on their computer, I saw the corresponding number for it was 666. Enough with the libraries, I then ordered the film off the Internet. It never arrived.
These type of "coincidences" happen to me very often and there is no rational explanation for them really.
You may think this is the rambling of a mad woman, although I think if you compare me to a certain mentally disturbed person who was recently blocked, you will deduce I am perfectly sane. I think you see I have the ability to reason in our debates.
Many atheists and other non believers automatically think Christians are brain-washed, outright lying or psychotic when they talk about the Holy Spirit. Yet they never stop and think for one minute that we actually may be right. That we are telling the truth and are in full possession of our mental faculties.
When atheists lash out at me, I think it is because there is a seed of doubt and are trying to convince themselves the Holy Spirit cannot possibly exist.
I feel so free and I wish everyone could feel free.Have you heard of " bias"?
Don't go by the films, a mentally "disturbed person",is not always running round. In fact, some people behave near normal, their disease is detected only very late in the stage of the disease.
Not always, you have the ability to reason(?, actually you have the ability to provide evidence that support your arguments, not reason) , as well as closing your eyes to reason
This is one area where you show utter disregard for reason. Spirit, holy or not does not exist. Free from what? See, I'm not asking you to provide evidence, what I'm asking you, is to explain. I've sited so many reasons/examples why you think what you think and you are not alone, every religious person does the same.
I have known satanists before. One girl would have cut off her right arm to get Satan to simply knock a book off a shelf at a given time yet she would have gone armless with no moving books. She was so much like the religious people I grew up with who would have cut their right arm off to have a vision of God. Maybe they would both give cutting off an arm a go and see what happens?(another girl, an old roommate from foster care, had that satanic verses book, she told me to read it, couldn't get past the authors notes on the cover. Just as hypocritical as any other religion, and frankly hard to tell the difference from christian beliefs)
According to your posts, the holy spirit is the only way to prove that the new testament is honest in its portrayal of Jesus but the holy spirit itself cannot be proven. A proof that cannot be proven is no proof at all. That would be like me saying that the invisible pink unicorn sitting on my head told me that there is no God so there fore there is no God cause I have proof, just proof that you can't see or in any way validate as being real.
By the way, the only reason you need to provide verifiable proof is because you have claimed these things as fact. Had you simply stated that you have faith that Jesus existed as the bible claims and nothing more, I would have no issue. Others might and I cannot speak for why they might or might not but you would be in a much better position to defend your position of faith. My only issue with religion is when faith fools itself into thinking its fact and as such has the right and authority to dictate to others what to believe and how to live. Religion is power and power corrupts.
I forgot to add,
Even if there was a real Jesus, we have no idea what he said(Whether he existed itself is a controversy, forget about what he said), as the gospels are hearsay, and as with all narrations, humans have a tendency to exaggerate and to add their version than what is said.Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no way to know what He really said for sure.
How can something with no physical existence tell anyone anything about what happened 2,000 years ago?
Mental hospitals are full of people who are 'told' stuff by invisible stuff, voices and visions. Many a woman can be found who believes themselves to be pregnant with Christ. How are you different from them when you say something that has no physical existence tells you about ancient history? How can anyone listen to you seriously?
The only solid thing you have to prove what jesus did or didn't say is stuff written by other men (of highly questionable reputations and motivations, very suspect). I wouldn't trust those guys as far as I could trow them.
If Jesus wanted a bible written for the ages, why didn't he write at least one of the books in it himself?
The authors of the books of the bible are NOT trustworthy in any way and are just as likely to be tools of the devil to corrupt the bible at its source in order to miss-lead generations and generations of people away from living good lives and making good choices. Far far far too many think what you believe is the important thing not how you live and who you choose to be. What Jesus would say is and can only ever be speculation based on our imaginations and nothing more.This is a pertinent question you have to answer Claire.
So when was He supposed to have written this and how would it have been preserved? Who would have kept it and given it to the gospel writers?
None of you have to believe me. I don't expect you, too. I sure wouldn't believe the gospels without corroboration.Let me help Claire a bit.
You see Jomine, the year Anno Domini 2012, in which you live now, is physical proof that Christ not only existed, but His birth was so important that the new era has began with his birth.
Are you sure that Socrates, Hippocrates, Herodotus ever existed? Last October I visited Anatolia and couldn't find any of their tombs; however, in Ephesus I have seen the house where Mary mother of Jesus lived. In nearby city of Seljuk there is a tomb of John the Apostle of Jesus. From Turkey I went to Salalah Oman where the tomb of Biblical Job is located. This is physical proofs that those people existed.
BTW Jomnie, do you believe in God at all?The Calender associated with "Anno Domini: was established in 525CE by a Christian Monk named Dionysius Exiguus.
Why did it take almost 500 years to determine a Calender based "Jesus"?
And we now use the Terms BCE and CE (Common Era) instead of BC or AD...DoubleScorpion,
whatever you call it now doesn't change the fact that the present era is based on the year when Christ was born.True, But that doesn't provide proof of his existance...Only that he was believed to exist by the "church" in 525CE and they created a calender based from that.
By that logic, then things like Fairies, Unicorns and other "fairy tale creatures" exist as well as they have made movies, written books and told stories of these types of creatures for ages as well. Just because there is a strong belief in something does not mean it is proof of existance...
And I am not saying that Jesus did or didn't exist...only that our current calender is not proof of his existance or proof in the belief of his existance.DoubleScorpion,
I don't know if you have notice my respond to Jomine post in which the is a proof that the time when Christ was born was well known 325 years before Dionysius was making his calculation.
Read Early Christian History
AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
by Tertullian (Written in 198)
You say:" Fairies, Unicorns and other "fairy tale creatures" exist as well as they have made movies, written books and told stories. "
In religion fairy tells were created whether to deceive you, are effect of mistranslation of the original text, or have deeper meaning which requires to search for the truth.
DoubleScorpion, what picture is on your mind when you hear the name St. George? What do you think about him?Hmm..Something written almost 200 years after he was suppose to have been born is proof of actual birth? As I have said...I am not saying he does or doesn't exist only that there is no "real" proof...Same as with most other persons of history...
Josephus also mentions "Jesus" in his antiquities...But it was a reference to the belief held by the "Christians" not if he was an actual person or not...And the same goes for many other secular writers...I would expect someone of the "church" to write about Jesus as a real person, because they truly believe he was a real person.
And as far as St. George is concerned...Do you believe in Dragons? The Catholics believed him to be a real person there is even a tomb for him in Israel (why a Roman would be buried in Israel instead of taken back home)...It is debated of course...But unless I was one to believe in myths would I believe that a "Saint" fought a dragon (Mythical creature). Stories of this nature are nothing more than Legends to represent something else. The Greeks and Romans had many stories of this nature...stories that today we call "Mythology" but at one time the persons portrayed in these stories were thought to have been real persons..You see DoubleScorpion,
It is not so important when it was written but who was the writer; and definitely when you look at the biography of Tertullian he is reliable source of information.
If I believe in dragons?
Of course not, however, if I see such a ridiculous image like this I always go for a journey to search for the truth and connections. And look what I have found:
"St.George the great martyr
Saint George was born to a Christian noble family in Nicomedia, during the late third century between about 275 AD and 285 AD, and he died in Lydda, Palestine.
His father, Geronzio (Latin Gerontius), was a Roman army official from Cappadocia and his mother was from Palestine. They were both Christians and from noble families of Anici, so by this the child was raised with Christian beliefs.
They decided to call him George, meaning "worker of the land". At the age of 14, George lost his father; a few years later, George's mother, Policronia (Polychronia), died.
Eastern accounts give the names of his parents as Anastasius and Theobaste.
Then George decided to go to Nicomedeia, the imperial city of that time, and present himself to Emperor Diocletian to apply for a career as a soldier. Diocletian welcomed him with open arms, as he had known his father, Geronzio—one of his finest soldiers.
By his late 20s, George was promoted to the rank of Tribunus and stationed as an imperial guard of the Emperor at Nicomedeia.
In the year AD 302, Diocletian (influenced by Galerius) issued an edict that every Christian soldier in the army should be arrested and every other soldier should offer a sacrifice to the Pagan gods. But George objected and with the courage of his faith approached the Emperor and ruler.
Diocletian was upset, not wanting to lose his best Tribune and the son of his best official, Geronzio. George loudly renounced the Emperor's edict, and in front of his fellow soldiers and Tribunes he claimed himself to be a Christian and declared his worship of Jesus Christ.
Diocletian attempted to convert George, even offering gifts of land, money and slaves if he made a sacrifice to the Pagan gods. The Emperor made many offers, but George never accepted.
Recognizing the futility of his efforts, Diocletian was left with no choice but to have him executed for his refusal. Before the execution George gave his wealth to the poor and prepared himself.
After various torture sessions, including laceration on a wheel of swords in which he was resuscitated three times, George was executed by decapitation before Nicomedia's city wall, on April 23, 303.
A witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom.
His body was returned to Lydda for burial, where Christians soon came to honor him as a martyr."
Empress Alexandra was a friend with St. Helena; mother of Constantine the Grate ….. What do we know today about Byzantine Empire?
As you have noticed:
“Stories of this nature are nothing more than Legends to represent something else. The Greeks and Romans had many stories of this nature...stories that today we call "Mythology" but at one time the persons portrayed in these stories were thought to have been real persons..”
So, who do you think is on the picture fighting the dragon?
Hesiod
The Catalogues of Women and Eoiae
http://www.bartleby.com/241/108.html
“… Eurynome the daughter of Nisus, Pandion’s son, to whom Pallas Athene taught all her art, both wit and wisdom too; for she was as wise as the gods. A marvellous scent rose from her silvern raiment as she moved, and beauty was wafted from her eyes. Her, then, Glaucus sought to win by Athena’s advising, and he drove oxen 2 for her. But he knew not at all the intent of Zeus who holds the aegis.
So Glaucus came seeking her to wife with gifts; but cloud-driving Zeus, king of the deathless gods, bent his head in oath that the … son of Sisyphus should never have children born of one father. 3 So she lay in the arms of Poseidon and bare in the house of Glaucus blameless Bellerophon, surpassing all men in … over the boundless sea.
And when he began to roam, his father gave him Pegasus who would bear him most swiftly on his wings, and flew unwearying everywhere over the earth, for like the gales he would course along.
With him Bellerophon caught and slew the fire-breathing Chimera. And he wedded the dear child of the great-hearted Iobates, the worshipful king … lord (of) … and she bare….”
Makes you think, who was the great-hearted Iobates, the worshipful king … lord (of) ......
It is in the Bible,
Iobates = Iob = Job"Scant reliable evidence exists to inform us about Tertullian's life. Most history about him comes from passing references in his own writings"
Hmm....
and where you managed to come up with this is beyond me..."Iobates = Iob = Job"
The story of Bellerophon and the dragon(Chimera) sounds alot like the story of Perseus and Medusa. The Greeks picked a good tale and stuck to it..don't you think...Partially from the Septuagint, LXX - JOB
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm
the rest from -------- I will let you to have some fun to search for it
Septuagint, LXX is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament in to Greek and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah).
The Septuagint was translated into Konya Greek for the newly established library of Alexandria during the reign of king Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). Its oldest existing manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was written in fourth century AD.
In the Septuagint translation of the Book of Job, there is a long subscription (Job CH 42:17); similar subscription is found in Arabic and Coptic version of the Bible and it says:
Septuagint, LXX (Job CH 42:17)
“17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up.
This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab;
and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam.
And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job,
and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim.
And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.”
The English name of “Job” is derived from the Latin word “Iob”.
Some more info:
Genesis 36
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV
Esau’s Descendants
1 This is the account of the family line of Esau (that is, Edom). …..
The Rulers of Edom
31 These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned:
32 Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah.
33 When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king.
34 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king.
35 When Husham died, Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, succeeded him as king. His city was named Avith.
36 When Hadad died, Samlah from Masrekah succeeded him as king.
37 When Samlah died, Shaul from Rehoboth on the river succeeded him as king.
38 When Shaul died, Baal-Hanan son of Akbor succeeded him as king.
39 When Baal-Hanan son of Akbor died, Hadad[e] succeeded him as king. His city was named Pau, and his wife’s name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-Zahab.I am quite familiar with who Job is..And the Septuagint...
Job is a Hebrew Character, why would the Greeks have stories about him? Unless they were re-telling the OT versions of the story.
I am kinda curious as to how the Greek version of the OT would be a "correction" of the Hebrew version...The orginial Text was written in Hebrew and Aramaic...for what reason would someone need to write it in a different language to "Correct" it. Seems to me that the Muslims feel the same...The Qu'ran is a "Correction" to the Bible as well...So is their version correct as well?
I thought we were discussing what constitutes "Proof" of a historical persons existance. Not having long drawn out posts of texts that I can read for myself from the various Biblical Texts I have at my house or which can be found online for those who are interested in reading...A simple reference to the source texts will suffice...
I was more curious as to how you took took the Greek Character Iobates and turned him into the Hebrew Character Job
BTW...I have a Doctorate in Biblical Studies...DoubleScorpion, Dr.
You say “Job is Hebrew Character”, and I have to agree with you.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T1119
Eber - The third post-duluvian patriach after Shem (Genesis 10:24; 11:14).
He is regarded as the founder of the Hebrew race (10:21; Numbers 24:24).
In Luke 3:35 he is called Heber.
The name Hebrew applies to descendants of Heber; he was ancestor of Abraham and many nations:
Arameans
Ishmaelites
Edomites
Israelites
Midianites
Shuites
Amonites
Moabites and many many more.
As you see just one of them happened to be Israelites.
Job was descendent of Ishmael and Isaac, so he was Hebrew Ishmaelite - Edomite, however, not Israelite.
You ask “why would the Greeks have stories about him?”
I think, because they have common ancestry.
EDOM - Says Herman L. Hoeh, in volume I of the Compendium, a very powerful ancient people were known as the "Hericlidae."
Dr. Hoeh says, "Witness the incursions of the Hyksos and the Edomite Heraclidae -- a branch of the Hebrews" -- into the land of early Greece (p.394).
Who were these people? Hoeh writes, in a section entitled "Who Were the Heraclidae?" that --
"The Heraclidae are said to have returned 80 years after the first Trojan War. Then they must have been in Greece and Asia Minor before. The most famous people who possessed this region before were the Hyksos rulers -- Apophis and Khyan.
The Hyksos were Amalekites and other tribes descended of Edom . . . As the Greeks called these people Heraclidae, is it possible that Hercules -- the father of the Heraclidae -- was Edom or Esau, the father of the Edomites and Amalekites?" (page 402).
The Book of Job was written Palo-Hebrew language, the language of Edomites, in a dialect distinct from the Jerusalem dialect use for most of the Old Testament.
Languages that possibly influenced the language of Job and are displayed in the Job are: Aramaic, Akkadian, Egyptians, Ugaritic, Arabic and Phoenician;
there are more than 250 parallels between Job and Ugaritic literature.
In fact the language is Hebrew but differing from the normal Hebrew dialect used in other Old Testament books.
In addition, over one hundred words in the Book of Job are not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; most of the rarer words and forms appear in the poetic material of the dialogues, while the prose prologue and epilogue are written in the more classical style of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Some linguist scholars use this as the evidence to argue for different origin of the two sections.
In addition the style of poetry division of Job is not really Mosaic; Moses uses the name of “Yahweh” often, whereas Job in the poetry part uses the name “Shaddai” (The Almighty).
Most of the futures mentioned above are reconcilable with the idea that the poetry part of the Book of Job was composed by a non-Israelite author on non-Israelite soil.
Jacques Bolduc suggested in his commentary of 1637, that the Book of Job may have been authored in a secondary way by Moses who found it in its original Aramaic form.
His opinion is in partial agreement with the belief of Sir John William Dawson, Canadian scientist of worldwide reputation and long time principle of McGill, who wrote in The Expositor:
“It would now seem that the language and theology of the Book of Job can be better explained by supposing it to be a portion of Minean [Southern Arabia] literature obtained by Moses in Midian than in any other way. This view also agrees better than any other with its references to natural objects, the art of mining, and other matters."
Pope John (523-526), anxious to free Rome from arcane missives from Constantinople, set Dionysius the task of computing future dates of Easter.
Dennis decided he couldn't base his calculations on the then prevailing dating system (from the accession of the great persecutor Emperor Diocletian!) so he went back to the 'foundation of Rome.'
Working forward he got to year 753/4 for JC's birth and, deciding that was the most important event, made it 'Year 1'. Earlier years became 'Ante Christum', later 'years of the Lord' 'Anno Domini.'
Dennis's system had no year zero because zero was unknown until the Arabs introduced the concept from India centuries later.
Dennis had to fudge the period between December 25th (Mithras' birthday, inherited by JC a century earlier) and January 1st, the beginning of the Roman year.
He also made an error in his calculation of 753 years – 749 would have been nearer the mark.
Though in truth the 'birth' of a fictional character could have been placed in any day, month, or year (the Eastern church chose January 6th; the Coptic church still uses 'anni Diocletiani'), between the 7th and 14th centuries Dennis's system spread across Christendom.
Now I'm not sure any of those characters existed either, but somebody had started that philosophy(may not be one man, either) and those were humans. Whether their name is what we got or not is immaterial and their philosophy I can dissect, accept or reject, as I choose(based on reason and logic[in case of Hippocrates-by experimentation, though we accept him as father of medicine, we are not following any of his methods, or have improved it very much that he won't recognize it]), nobody is coming to my house with eternal damnation and unquestioning obedience.
And many christian pilgrimage sites(including the one you mentioned) were "discovered"/"invented" by later enthusiasts, you can guess why!
As Voltaire said, if you want to converse with me, define your terms.
Belief is the confidence we have in a statement that it is true.
God usually means creator who created the universe.
So I can't have belief in god, I can only believe what he said, Alas! Nobody knows what he said.
So you are in effect asking me, whether I believe in the authorities and ancients who say there is god, I don't.
Creation in any form is irrational and hence impossible, so no creator.
Any sentient being has to evolve, hence no god.Jomine, the time when Christ was born was well known 325 years before Dionysius was making his calculation.
Read Early Christian History
AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
by Tertullian (Written in 198)
But first, some more info about Tertullian:
Tertullian - General Information
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/tertulli.htm
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, b. Carthage, c.155, d. after 220,
was one of the greatest Western theologians and writers of Christian antiquity.
Tertullian was born Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus in Carthage, the son of a Roman centurion.
He trained for a career in law and practiced his profession in Rome.
An advocate in the law courts in Rome, Tertullian converted (c.193) to Christianity.
Tertullian wrote many theological treatises, of which 31 have survived.
In his various works he strove either to defend Christianity, to refute heresy, or to argue some practical point of morality or church discipline.
Tertullian profoundly influenced the later church fathers, especially Saint Cyprian - and through them, all Christian theologians of the West.
Tertullian's writings demonstrate a profound knowledge of Greek and Latin literature, both pagan and Christian.
A man of vast erudition, he employed the classical rhetorical artsand freely cited Greek and Latin authors, although he disclaimed a reliance on Greek philosophy.”
And now to his book:
Early Christian History
AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
Tertullian
(Written in 198)
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertulla.htm
Chapter 8. Of the Times of Christ's Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem's Destruction.
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion,.....
"Let us see, therefore, how the years are filled up until the advent of the Christ:—
For Darius reigned...xviiii years (19).
Artaxerxes reigned...xl and i years (41).
Then King Ochus (who is also called Cyrus) reigned...xxiiii years (24).
Argus...one year.
Another Darius, who is also named Melas...xxi years (21).
Alexander the Macedonian...xii years (12)
Then, after Alexander, who had reigned over both Medes and Persians, whom he had reconquered, and had established his kingdom firmly in Alexandria, when withal he called that (city) by his own name; after him reigned, (there, in Alexandria,)
Soter...xxxv years (35).
To whom succeeds Philadelphus, reigning...xxx and viii years (38).
To him succeeds Euergetes...xxv years (25).
Then Philopator...xvii years (17).
After him Epiphanes...xxiiii years (24).
Then another Euergetes...xxviiii years (29).
Then another Soter,...xxxviii years (38).
Ptolemy...xxxvii years (37).
Cleopatra,...xx years v months (20 5-12).
Yet again Cleopatra reigned jointly with Augustus...xiii years (13).
After Cleopatra, Augustus reigned other...xliii years (43).
For all the years of the empire of Augustus were...lvi years (56).
Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning for xx and viii years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born. (And the same Augustus survived, after Christ is born, xv years; and the remaining times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us to the xl first year, which is the xx and viiith of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra.) There are, (then,) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months: (whence are filled up lxii hebdomads and an half: which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months on the day of the birth of Christ....."
Let's read it again:
"Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus,
when he has been reigning for xx and viii years after the death of Cleopatra,
the Christ is born.
(And the same Augustus survived,
after Christ is born, XV (15) years;
and the remaining times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us to the xl first year, which is the xx and viiith of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra.)
There are, (then,) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months:
(whence are filled up lxii hebdomads and an half:
which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months
on the day of the birth of Christ....."
O.K.
We know that that Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus,
Emperor of the Roman Empire died 19 August AD 14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
So, if form the year 14 (the year when Augustus died),we take away the XV (15) years, which according to Tertullian Augustus survived after Christ is born, then we can see clearly that Christ was born in the first year of our era,
or correctly said: His Era (AD - Anno Domini / the year of the Lord - if I'm correct).
So, it was beginning of our era when Christ was born.
Jomine, on you hub
“Some thoughts on religion, belief and god..”
You have made a statement:
…“The only true religion is the one that they believe in and only true book is that of their religion!!
Again may be coming out of their humility, I wonder!!”….
“Old testament, purely a Jews text made by them to cater to that particular sect of barbarian race of that time. it discusses how to make a living what to do and what not to. it also says to kill all others that oppose them. over all it is a book that was made to keep there racial identity by proclaiming there superiority over others(incidentally all religions also competed to make their priests rich for they are the people who found that by banking on peoples credulity they can live leisurely). it was for a barbarian race and there was nothing about love and such human emotions. it was brutal as was the people of the time. it is full of stories for the common man to understand and was presented as literal truths.”
You see jomine, not all Old Testament books are Jews text and not all of them says to kill others who oppose Jews.
Initially it was my impression too; however, after studying the Bible on my own, I got attracted to one particular book, as I have found later, to the oldest book in existence and masterpiece of world literature - The Book of Job.
The Biblical OT Book of Job introduces us to the person of Job, and places him as one of 'sons of the east' generally referring to the Ishmaelite’s in the Patriarchs times.
The leading English poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson, praised this book as the:
"... greatest poem of ancient and modern times."
Tennyson’s opinion about this book was shared by Victor Hugo, who wrote:
"Tomorrow, if all the literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job".
Almost 250 years ago Voltaire wrote:
“ARABS; AND, OCCASIONALLY, ON THE BOOK OF JOB.
- Voltaire, The Works of Voltaire, Vol. III
(Philosophical Dictionary Part 1) [1764]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ … ;Itemid=27
• Author: Voltaire
• Introduction: Oliver Herbrand Gordon Leigh
• Translator: William F. Fleming
On Job, the Arab.
It is clear that the Arabs at least possessed noble and exalted ideas.
Those who are most conversant with the oriental languages think that the Book of Job, which is of the
highest antiquity, was composed by an Arab of Idumæa.
The most clear and indubitable proof is that the Hebrew translator has left in his translation more than a hundred Arabic words, which, apparently, he did not understand.
Job, the hero of the piece, could not be a Hebrew, for he says, in the forty-second chapter, that having been restored to his former circumstances, he divided his possessions equally among his sons and daughters, which is directly contrary to the Hebrew law.
A yet stronger proof—one to which there is no reply—is the knowledge of astronomy which appears in the Book of Job.
Mention is here made of the constellations which we call Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades, and even of those of “the chambers of the south.”
Now, the Hebrews had no knowledge of the sphere; they had not even a term to express astronomy; but the Arabs, like the Chaldæans, have always been famed for their skill in this science.
It does, then, seem to be thoroughly proved that the Book of Job cannot have been written by a Jew,
and that it was anterior to all the Jewish books, Philo and Josephus were too prudent to count it among those of the Hebrew canon.
It is incontestably an Arabian parable or allegory. This is not all.
We derive from it some knowledge of the customs of the ancient world, and especially of Arabia.
Here we read of trading with the Indies; a commerce which the Arabs have in all ages carried on, but which the Jews never even heard of.
Here, too, we see that the art of writing was in great cultivation, and that they already made great books... “"
Maybe one day I will write my own Hub about Job, hope you will join me in search for the Truth.That is it, by the end of first century it became an "accepted" fact that Jesus lived and died. With the well known references(like Augustus) anybody could guess a date for the probable birth of jesus and that was exactly done, so the division of calendar cannot be taken as an evidence for Jesus.
It surely was not my contention that all the books are by jews, or exhort genocide.
But in a hub like that it is not possible, or not intended to discuss each and every book, but I only took the general idea(The most contemptible one by today's standard).
The OT books are not a single book nor written at the same time. Ideas may not be all jewish(like the Noah's ark), or profess hatred(Ruth).
I'll look forward to it. I, for my part, have done away with bible(for that matter all religious texts). I debate in hub like a hobby. I found that jewish history has not a major rule to play in world history nor the bible has any great "truths" in it. So I turned my attention to neurology, history, philosophy, economics and science(not the relativity, quantum bunk). But certainly I'm open to all ideas(and certainly will consider before dismissing or admitting), but I don't think it can be found in religion, thats all.Jomine,
You have said:
“I found that jewish history has not a major rule to play in world history nor the bible has any great "truths" in it. So I turned my attention to neurology, history, philosophy, economics and science…”
However,there is something about science in the Bible, (not the jewish part).
Years ago I’ve put together research essay about Job, and this is fragment of it:
“The book of Job, being the oldest book in existence, and the masterpiece of world literature has deeply influence our human society. Many people in ancient and modern times have been inspired and comforted by the piety and patience of Job.
In 1822, at the age of 65, William Blake, English poet and painter, began work on 21 illustrations for The Book of Job. These works were later admired by John Ruskin, who compared Blake favorably to Rembrandt.
As the Nazi broke ground for Auschwitz camp, in spring of 1940, a 19 years old student and aspiring actor Karol Wojtyla, had just finished writing his second play in nearby Krakow; Job , a drama from the Old Testament. This play leads inexorably to the characteristic Wojtyla denouement and the divine whisper: “Be Not Afraid”. Later as John Paul II it would be his most repeated message whether in private audiences or the individuals within a very large crowd.
Examples can be endless, but who was the author of this masterpiece?
Considering that this book is the oldest book in existence, this question could be enigma with no answer at all; nevertheless, this book is worth searching for one.
The oldest fragments of manuscripts of The Book of Job found among the Dead Sea scrolls in the Qumran caves are dated back to the second century B.C.; some of them are written in Aramaic, a language commonly use at that time, but some fragments are written in Palo-Hebrew, a language which was in use before the time of the Exile (six century BC).
“This book was apparently well known in the days of Ezekiel, 600 B.C.” (Easton)
In this case one may as well look for the author of The Book of Job between the stars in the sky; fortunately there are verses in Job Chapter 9, in which Job admires the work of God and says:
“8 Who (God) alone spreadeth out the heavens,
and treadeth upon the waves of the sea;
9 Who maketh Arcturus, Orion and Pleiades…”
A short note about these celestial bodies:
The seven stars of the PLEIADES are in reality a grouping of 250 suns. Photographs reveal that 250 blazing suns in this group are all traveling together in one common direction. From Lick Observatory came this statement of Dr. Robert J. Trumpler:
“The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship”.
Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of ORION in his book Curiosities of the Sky: (Garrett P. Serviss, Curiosities of The Sky).
“At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.”
ARCTURUS, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second; our sun is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second; it could only be stopped by collision head on with a body of enormous mass. Barring such accidents, it must, as far as we can see, keep on until it has traversed our stellar system, whence it may escape and pass out into space beyond to join perhaps one of those other island universes.
Charles Burckhalter, director of the Chabot Observatory at Oakland, added an interesting note regarding this great star:
“This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. He is an outsider, a visitor, a stranger within the gates; to speak plainly, Arcturus is a runaway. Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.”
In epiphany, The Book Job Ch.38, God reviles to Job some more secrets of the universe by merely raising questions concerning the wonders of His creation. Three of these questions found in Job 38:31- 32, are:
“Canst thou bind the sweet influences of PLEIADES,
or loose the bands of ORION?
Canst thou guide ARCTURUS with his sons?”
When Mr. Burckhalter had his attention called to this text in the book of Job, he studied it in the light of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention:
“The study of The Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that Job is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.”
I don't think she can, I honestly don't think she gets what it is we are challenging here.
For me what I challenge is when someone mistakes their faith as fact and certainty. Tell me you have faith that God exists, my only question is why do I care, believe what you want. Tell me that God's existence is a proven fact and you lose any and all respect you may have ever had chance to gain with me. You are talking from ego not faith. This is something that many 'believers' just don't get. Believe what you want but don't tell me its fact or expect me to treat it as anything more then a fairy tale because its not fact, its faith. Have faith that God exists if you must, if it makes you feel better, just don't mistake your faith for fact.
Definition of faith:
My computer dictionary:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
If these 'believers' could show a little real faith I could and would and in my daily life where I see real faith do feel tremendous respect. Sadly there is no faith expressed in these forums, only ego and hypocrisy. At least the atheist is honest about their lack of faith.
And we don’t have a wealth of information of Jesus in the New Testament? Regarding ben Sirach, for example, he belonged to the intellectual aristocracy, which means he was of a high position of influence, which would mean his writings would be preserved. Jesus, on the other hand, mingled in places with people of low status. I don’t think it would be prudent of Him to attempt to write about His ventures considering He could not possibly preserve any of His writings. Also, Jerusalem was razed to the ground in 70 AD. If there were writings, they would have been lost.
And how did the disciples know about stuff only mary might have known, and like the shepherd, not even her(And the temptation by devil)?
What makes you think Mary would not have told anyone else of her experience? She definitely would have told Jesus! The shepherds met Mary. Are you referring to the temptation of Jesus? What makes you think He’d keep His experiences all to Himself? Do we have the existence of all the Roman records of crucified people?
Who were the eye witnesses? I do not know but they must have contributed during the time the gospels were in the form of oral tradition and we know the oral tradition as relayed by Paul was firmly established that Jesus was the son of God. That was the belief from the beginning and not an evolution of a myth. I will also tell you how oral tradition worked back then.
Along these lines, it’s interesting to compare the typical characteristics of oral performances with the Gospels. For example, specialists of oral traditions have discovered that oral performances are characterized by a balance between form and freedom. That is, the narrator is granted a certain amount of creativity and flexibility in how he or she presents the traditional material, but there are also strong constraints when it comes to altering the core content of traditional material. What specific material a tradent decides to include or exclude in any given oral performance, and even, to some extent, the order in which the narrator decides to present traditional material in any given oral performance, depends largely on the needs and interests of the community at the time of the oral performance. But, again, if the narrator alters the material too much, the community objects and corrects him. In this way, the community itself serves an important role in making sure its treasured oral traditions don’t get substantially altered.
When one compares the Gospels and understands them in the context of the orally dominated culture in which they arose, one discovers this exact same sort of balance. (9) The overall narrative framework and essential content of the portrait of Jesus we find in these texts is quite consistent, but there is also considerable freedom in how the material is presented. The order of events and wording of Jesus’ sayings, for example, is slightly different in each Gospel, though the basic content is the same. In light of the new discoveries in orality studies, this suggests that we should view the Gospels as written versions of specific oral performances of traditional Jesus material. And the gist of it all is that it reinforces the view that the oral traditions that lie behind the Gospels — including their overall narrative framework– are solidly rooted in history.
Finally, we must discuss the common assumption that oral traditions are primarily community, not individually, based. This assumption has fueled the classic form critical view that the Jesus story was largely originated and shaped to address on-going needs in the early Jesus movement. Related to this, it has fueled the view that individual eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life would have played little or no role in originating or regulating oral traditions about Jesus. Here too research into oral traditions and orally dominated communities exposes a classic form critical assumption to be mistaken.
Orality specialists now realize that, while the community plays a significant role in preserving the accuracy of an oral tradition, as we’ve seen, oral communities typically designate an individual tradent to be the bearer of the tradition and the primary one responsible for passing it on. Also, when an individual was an eyewitness to events that became part a community’s oral traditions, they are often designated the oral tradent of that tradition.
This new research sheds important light on our understanding of the oral Jesus-tradition. If the oral period of the early church functioned similarly to the way we now know oral communities tend to operate, we should expect that those individuals who were closest to Jesus during his ministry would have played a significant role in the transmission of oral material about Jesus. Yes, the traditional material was certainly shaped by the needs of the early faith communities, for, as we have seen, oral tradents always shape their performances according to the particular situation of their audience. But what this new discovery of the crucial role played by individual tradents entails is that we can no longer conceive of the traditional material about Jesus being transmitted in the early church apart from the strong influence of original eyewitnesses. And this renders it impossible to conceive of the oral traditions in the early church veering too far from the historical events observed by eyewitnesses.
The point is strongly reinforced when we recall that early Christianity was a thoroughly Jewish movement, for the Jewish tradition had always put a strong emphasis on the role of eyewitnesses. Only by appealing to credible eyewitnesses could one certify a claim as factual (e.g., Jer 32:10, 12; Ruth 4:9-11; Isaiah 8:2). So too, bearing false witness was considered a major crime. Indeed, it was outlawed in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:16). The law of multiple witnesses also reflects the life-or-death importance of this commandment in ancient Judaism. (Deut 17:6-7; Num 35:30).
This emphasis on the importance of eyewitnesses was quite explicitly carried over into the early church. The mosaic law regarding multiple witnesses was appealed to within the Jesus community (Mk 14:56, 59; Jn 5:31-32; Heb 10:28) and was made the basis of church discipline (Mt 18: 16; II Cor 13:1; I Tim 5:19). More broadly, the themes of bearing witness, giving a true testimony and making a true confession are everywhere present in the tradition of the early church (e.g., Mt 10:17; Mk 6:11; 13:9-13; Lk 1:1-2; 9:5; 21:12; 22:71; John 1:7-8, 15, 19, 32, 34;). (18) As Robert Stein observes, the sheer pervasiveness of these themes in the early church testifies to “the high regard in which eyewitness testimony was held.” (19) It also explains the earlier noted high regard given to certain individuals in the early church (e.g. Peter, James, John) for their role as witnesses, teachers and preservers of the Jesus tradition, (e.g., Acts 1:15, 21-2; 2:14, 42; 3:1-11; 4:13, 19; 5:1-10, 15, 29; 8:14; 12:2; I Cor 15:1-8; Gal 2:9; Eph 2:20). All of this is what we should expect, given that the early church was a thoroughly Jewish, orally dominated culture.
This will explain why there are deviances in the gospels but the core message stays the same.
JOSEPHUS
The vocabulary found in the Testimonium is consistent with the vocabulary used in other passages in Antiquities. The phrase Now about this time is used at the beginning of this passage as well dozens of other passages.
It is clear that this is Josephus’ writings with Christian interpolation. A Christian would never have referred to Jesus as just a wise man, but Josephus previously referred to people like Solomon and Daniel as wise men. Wonderful works is also something that was equated with Elisha according to Josephus.
Josephus uses “wise man” of Solomon and Daniel. The “wonderful works” is the same expression as that applied to Elisha. And “tribe” as a description of the Christians is used for the Jewish “race” and other groups. Such words identify these sections of the Testimonium as original and authentic to Josephus. Tribes to him were major or minor sects or just groups.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm#Josephan phrases
Look how many times Josephus refers to tribe:
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=pTY4 … mp;f=false
It is indisputable that there is Christian interpolation in reference to, “He was the Christ”. In Jewish Antiquities 20.9., Josephus writes:
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
This passage is important because if one is familiar with the style Josephus wrote, then one can see that Jesus, son of Damneus, is not the same as Jesus, the so-called Christ. When Josephus writes about a person for the first time, he introduces them as their full title. Here are some examples:
• Antiquities 17: 271: “There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers.”
• Antiquities 17: 273: “There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the king.”
• Antiquities 18: 4: “Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala.”
• Wars 5: 335: “They intended to have Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain.”
If Josephus had already introduced Jesus, son of Damneus and the so-called Christ, he would simply refer him as just Jesus from then onwards. However, we see Jesus is introduced twice thus proving that Josephus was writing about two different people.
If the part… “so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.” was actually referring to son of Damneus, it should have read, “
“James, brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus.”
However, Josephus would never have introduced the same person twice. At the time of Annas’ High Priesthood, Jesus Damneus could not have been anointed as the high priest and thus could not have been considered a Christ.
http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/20 … f-damneus/
http://kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Josephus.html
In the New International Version of the Bible, Nazareth is consistently referred to as a town, which obviously is not as big as a city. That’s a translation issue there.
Why would the Talmud refer to Nazareth? Why should it since those Jews thought of Jesus with contempt? What is it to them where Jesus grew up? St Paul’s purpose was not to regurgitate the whole of the gospels but to spread the news of Jesus’ death and resurrection. And if the Jews in the OT held no significance to Nazareth, why write about it?
Are you just going to dismiss the archaeological evidence proving the existence of Nazareth?
Lol. I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with those mountains. It’s too insignificant to me, really.
Please, don’t just say, “most prominently in the Damascus Document”. Why don’t you quote the relevant parts for me like I do? And your sources please! You didn’t exactly refute the Crucified Messiah Scroll.
It also is a spelling error for Christus. I’ve already explained that. Who was this instigator and what importance did he hold? Why didn’t Suetonius elaborate on why the rebellion happened if it was nothing to do with the Christians?
Wouldn’t be surprised if a Christian corrected Tacitus’ misspelling. In two separate writings, he refers to “Christus”. What does this manuscript say? Perhaps we can get clues from there.
PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D)
So we agree that by the mid century, the word “Christian” was in use. Pliny wrote that excerpt from his letter in 111 AD so there is no reason to assume that he would not have used that term.
You are correct in saying Tacitus used the word Christian. However, you conceded that the word Christian was in use by the mid century and Tacitus was an historian in the second century.
Also, the most dreadful things are being said about Christians like “abominable superstition” and “filth and depravity” and “hatred for the entire human race”. It’s unlikely a forger would use such language to describe Christianity. Take for example, the Christian interpolation in Josephus’ writing how it is dripping with honey describing Jesus, if you argue from the point of view that the entire text is a forgery.
The conclusion is that Jesus as written about and I most certainly don’t like the fact that there is Christian interpolation in Josephus’ works. If one digs below the surface, my conclusion should be sound.As much as we have about Odysseus from odyssey, or Rama from Ramayana.
Then jesus boasted to his disciples that the prophets came to strengthen him, his sweat became blood, he didn't fall into temptation though he was offered the world?
You didn't tell me from which mountain jesus saw the whole world.
And though you or jesus do not know about it, epilepsy is a brain disorder.
Yet we have writings of other people.
Pilate was a meticulous bureaucrat and the emperor was very particular and we have, about that time
Paul after the vision, without studying anything from “disciples” went on teaching though he never heard about earthly jesus, or was there any tv for Paul to know about jesus, in tarsus?
.
It is not difficult to imitate a style.
You forgot the, if he can be called one, part and the great devotion shown by a JEW, who remained a jew though he says the prophets said, em! let me think, he worshiped secretly, right?
And no christian writer, though quoted extensively from josephus, never saw that paragraph, before 4th century!
Ok, now it is a town(though all gospels unanimously say it is a city). You said a settlement of 50 families. And nobody heard about the town either! There was a mountain there from which they tried to push him down, and you are not worried about the absence of the mountain? And 50 families surely have heard about the divine birth, ….yet they tried to push him down the precipice which is absent. And the early pilgrims never knew about their god’s birth place, to go there.
I quoted Pliny himself saying he has no idea what the Christians believed. I never said it is the same person who manipulated. (josephus probably by Eusebius and, Tacitus by Sulphius). I said by after mid century, not at the time of Nero.
Christians somehow want their mythical god to walk on earth and then somehow wanted a god. You don't even have to post this much, to dupe the gullible, for my part, I told, whether this fellow lived or not is non-issue for me. His beliefs in devil causing diseases, inconsistent teaching etc has no bearing in my life. Most of this, now i'm writing from my memory and quoting from net, I've no intention to go back to this nonsense, whats so ever.Oh, so there were about 5600 copies writing about Odysseus and Rama from Ramayana? Wow.
http://cnu.ruf.org/site_content/attachm … the_NT.pdf
I'm not sure if you are aware that "the whole world" is figurative? A vision?
If you think it was a literal mountain, that mountain wouldn't have existed because there is no mountain that gives you a view of the whole world.
They didn't exactly have their writings destroyed in a fire that destroyed the whole city.
You didn't answer my question. Do we have all of Pilate's records of crucifixions?
Obviously the vision acquainted him with Jesus. That's as good as a TV. Or better! Something to think about: what did Paul have to gain by claiming to have seen Jesus in a vision and preach the gospel of a crucified man just to be persecuted and ultimately killed?
That’s Christian interpolation, too. A Christian making that part up would never have referred Him as a wise man, then say, “If we could be called one”. Why say He was a wise man at all? If this was the work of a Christian forger, then he is expressing doubt about whether Jesus is the son of God by say, “if”. Also, calling someone wise was actually not a compliment to Christians. Look at Luke 10:21: “I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to your little children.
So no Christian would have called Jesus wise.
When you read this, it actually seems contradictory. This is how scholars think Josephus actually wrote it:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
Leading Jewish scholar Geza Vermes agrees that there is a connection between the use of the term for Daniel and Solomon and the TF's description of Jesus:
Of these, Solomon and Daniel are the most obvious parallels to Jesus qua wise men. Both were celebrated as masters of wisdom. Hence it is not surprising to find the epithet 'teacher' follows closely the phrases under consideration in the Testimonium.
So the comparison is not because of divine powers.
In reference to "startling/incredible deeds" (paradoxa), Josephus is known to use this term but Christians avoided it because it is unambiguous. It can also mean controversial deeds. In fact it could insinuate he was a scammer or magician. The word a Christian would have used would be sign or miracle. That would equate Him with prophets, etc. However, Josephus is neutral when writing this about Jesus. He reports it as a tradition but doesn’t really take it that seriously.
"He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles."
This is not true and a Christian would have known it. Jesus’ ministry was primarily directed at the Jews and rarely came into contact with the gentiles.
“..and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross”.
A Christian would have said “Jews or Sanhedrin” instead of “principal men”.
Quite frankly, if this was a complete forgery by a Christian then they did a really shoddy job. If there goal was to make Jesus seem more favourable, they failed.
Now, about your claim that no Christian writer saw the passage prior to the 4th century is not necessarily true. It probably was seen but was deemed too neutral about Jesus to their liking and probably ignored it. Then when the Christian interpolation came along, it was approved of. It is also realized that he was not well-known to the early Church fathers.
A final conclusion from the website I’ve consulted:
A Brilliant or Skilled Interpolator?
Once the evidence is in and partial authenticity seems the best explanation, the spectre of the "brilliant interpolator" is usually raised. Far from being established as factual, the "brilliant interpolator" tends to be a last ditch attempt to save one's presumed opinion about the TF. Nevertheless, I will discuss the many problems with the theory:
First, it is one of those theories that relies on the absence of evidence. The less evidence there is of an interpolation, the more often people resort to it and the stronger they believe the case to be. A theory that depends on a lack of evidence is not all that persuasive.
Second, textual criticism was not a body of inquiry prior to the 18th century. It is unlikely that an interpolator would even think it necessary to select various phrases from all over Josephus' writings to mimic his style in order to deceive 21st century sceptics.
Third, interpolators were more pious than professional. The whole purpose of interpolating something was to say what the original author did not and probably would not have said. This is shown by the Slavonic Josephus's obvious and extensive additions, as well as the blatant Christian glosses in the TF ("he was the Christ" and "if it indeed it is correct to call him a man").
Fourth, too many of the TF phrases that are Josephan are also terms that Christians would have avoided (such as "wise man," "pleasure," "leading men," and "paradoxical deeds"). It would be self defeating to so mimic Josephus' style that you had to imply inadequate, negative, and/or offensive statements and attributes to Jesus.
Fifth, the "brilliant interpolator" would not have described Jesus merely as a "wise man" only to have to add the clarification, "if indeed he can be called a man." Nor would he have placed "he was the Christ" in such an awkward spot.
Sixth, the blatant Christian glosses count against a brilliant interpolator. Someone trying to sound like Josephus would hardly make the obvious blunders found in the TF that give away the game ("he was the Christ," if it indeed it is correct to call him a man," and "he rose from the dead on the third day as foretold by the prophets"). Of course, it could be argued that the original interpolator's account was more neutral, and that later blundering scribes added the obvious Christian glosses. But, as alluded to in point four, this would defeat the purpose of the entire effort. What possible purpose could a Christian have in interpolating such a neutral account about Jesus when no one was arguing that he did not exist or denying that he was believed to have done some impressive deeds? And why unnecessarily use terms that cast so much doubt on your own creed? (such as the ambiguous term "paradoxa"). As noted by Professor Vermes, "[i]t would be meaningless to invent a testimony that did not support the belief of the interpolator." Vermes, op. cit., page 4.
Seventh, whatever linguistic similarities to Josephus (and dissimilarities to his own creed) the brilliant interpolator may have managed, the theory fails to explain other arguments favoring partial authenticity (no connection to John the Baptist, the likelihood of a clarifying reference for the reference to James the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, the textual variants lacking one of the main Christian glosses, and the lack of a Christian track record of such wholesale inventions).
It is so obvious that Josephus wrote this passage but consists of Christian interpolation.
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
I didn’t think Nazareth was a town. I’m just saying what it says in my bible.
You keep ignoring the fact that archaeology has proven Nazareth existed.
Nazareth was very much looked down on. Consider (John 1:45) , Philip, an apostle of Jesus, asks Nathaniel to come and see "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph". Nathaniel says to Philip "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" suggesting that Nazareth was already well known as a town of some ill repute
Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee. If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just north of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the south tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It was in a mountain basin with hills rising 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft) above it. The area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns near Nazareth. Also, it is estimated that one could walk from Nazareth to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean Coast in seven hours, to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee in five hours, and to Jerusalem in three days.
Nazareth was near trade routes of the area but not directly on them. It was not mentioned by Josephus, though he referred to nearby Japhia as the largest fortified village of all Galilee, leading to the idea that Nazareth was eclipsed by its neighbor. Josephus did not mention many of the settlements in Galilee, so his not mentioning Nazareth might not be particularly significant.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Jesus … _years_ago
Nazareth Settled Before Jesus' Birth Archeological research in and around the Church of the Annunciation has convinced scholars that Nazareth was not only settled as an agricultural village several centuries before Jesus was born but also that it was occupied during His lifetime. Numerous grottoes, silos,
cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods.
In addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D.
The archeological evidence is clear. Nazareth was undoubtedly an established, though small, Jewish settlement in the first century A.D. as the Gospels indicate.11
This is what Pliny said:
"Having never been present at any trials concerning those persons who are Christians, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them."
He did not say he didn’t know what they believed. As the quote says, he didn’t know the nature of their crimes or what the extent of their punishment should be or how much should be invested in them to examine them.
Nero ruled after the mid century. The great fire broke out in 64 AD.
So they just went from being Jews and decided to just think of a son of God. Only because they got tired of being Jews, I suppose.
His beliefs in devils caused diseases??? Inconsistent teaching? Me thinks you protest to much. No one is compelling you “to go back to this nonsense”. I just think it is ridiculous not to believe a man called Jesus lived.You still didn't get it, did you?
You claim divine guidance, with so much guidance, there are irreconcilable errors and later additions and editing and incongruencies in the gospel, to preclude a divine guidance, nor the divine was able to leave anything concrete.
If Jesus was only human, why should I give a damn, whose evidence of existence is at best controversial and at worst none?Divine guidance doesn't mean automatic writing, you know. Humans inspired by the Holy Spirit make mistakes, too, you know, because they are, well, human.
To think that the evidence of Jesus is questionable is just stupid. There is no serious historian or scholar who disputes His existence. His divinity is another story, however, but we were debating the existence of Jesus.
And you clearly do give a damn or else you would not have been debating with me all this time. Would you like to debate the existence of Tacitus, Nero, Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, etc? If not, why? Is it because you don't give a damn?
I know you have a seed of doubt and that is why you are getting so aggressive. I've been debating with people for nearly 4 years now and know the signs.
Question: how do you think the Jews were convinced that Jesus was the son of God? Were they not happy being Jews? Did they prefer to be persecuted and killed? It's a very pertinent question."What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~ Martin Luther
There is actual evidence for their existence, not hearsay, as with Jesus.So inspired, not guided. Inspired they wrote what they felt like, though far from truth.
So far, most historians are Christians, who from birth take it for granted. Serious secular historians are doubting the veracity of the story..
You make me laugh.
Tacitus.. all are dead and happy in their graves. There sales men don't come to my door.
I am aggressive because you are wasting my time. And as days go by I'm more and more convinced that logic will never cure a religious, especially one who is delusional.
There was no dearth of fanatics and idiots through out history. At the end of 1st century there were 60000o Jews while there were hardly 60000 christains. And it was jews who were persecuted, christians got a part cause Romans couldn't differentiate.Now to your nonsense.
1. Nazareth - There is no archaeological evidence for the CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE of Nazareth, though the gospels say city of Nazareth. And according to gospels there is a mountain there, but Nazareth is a valley.
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." – Matthew 2.23.
Is a misquote too, For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." – Judges 13.5
Then were is the Lake in Gadara for the pigs to commit suicide?
2. No one heard about the killings of infants by Herod, except Mathew. Even Luke didn't hear of that, for he says they directly went to Nazareth(no Egypt)
3. The mountain is vision, or the world that satan showed is a vision? There is no need to take to a mountain to show a vision.(Again who showed, did jesus too hallucinate?)
4. how did the gospel writers heard about the visions, the private thoughts of jesus/the priests/Pilate wife's/ his transformation ....which nobody has witnesses?
5. The whole city welcomed jesus, even called out Hosana and then the next day the whole populace condemned him for mysterious reason, but still nobody noticed.
6. Jesus knew his teachings won't survive the events of AD & so he didn't write(according to You), though Pauls were from AD40.
8. Paul himself taught only about a sacrificial jesus lived and died, but not an earthly being. Neither did he quote jesus any where in his epistles.
9. The first gospel mark only new about death, no resurrection, yet the later copies it was added.
10. Mathew and Luke had to copy from mark, sometimes even word by word, all of which copied passages from Josephus, why? to feel authentic?
11. So nobody know what Josephus really wrote, but everybody agree he wrote about this particular Jesus?
12. Others knew about christians because they lived in an era where christians were gaining prominence, but there were no 'christians who called themselves christains' at the time they refer to.
For a convinced christian they will find silly reasons and justifiaction to circumvent all these(There are lot more, but I'm fed up of the silly justifications you come up with.
So, if the miracles are removed, what is left? A preacher Jew named Jesus in Judea around 150BC to 50AD, which nobody of any consequence had heard. It can be any one, even a story but has nothing to do with history.Computer is down and am on my sister's laptop. Will reply when the computer is fixed in a few days. Just in case you wonder why I answer some comments ande not others.
Yes, there is. Or are you saying my links are wrong?
So what if there is a valley? Valleys are surrounded by mountains:
About six miles southeast of Nazareth stands Mt. Tabor, a dome-shaped mountain rising nearly 2,000 feet above the Jezreel Valley.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … html#Tabor
I don’t believe the Judges passage is a prophecy of Jesus at all. Jesus obviously wasn’t a Nazarite and He didn’t deliver Israel from the Philistines. Interesting enough, Nazarites do shave their heads when taking a vow. What I think happened is that the gospel writers looked back at Jesus’ ministry and His story and looked through the Old Testament to see if there were corroborating prophecies. Some gospel writer confused Nazarite with Nazarene, I think, and thought it was a prophecy fulfilled but actually was not.
There seems to be a mix-up between Gadara and Garasa.
Excerpts from website I’ve consulted:
“The Decapolis region was not clearly defined politically. Individual cities controlled their immediate areas, and sometimes these overlapped. The audiences for which Mark and Luke wrote would be familiar with Gerasa (Jerash) with its impressive temples, its theaters, and its hippodrome and elegant public buildings. Gerasa controlled considerable territory, extending even to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.”
•“Known as "the Athens of the East," Gadara required access to the lake for purposes of transportation and trade. Assuming that the deductions made above concerning the use of the names in the three Gospels are correct, the deliverance would have occurred near the present Ha'On campground on the southeastern shore of the lake.
•The high ridge of the Lower Golan Heights that rises above the harbor of Gadara would account for the destructive descent of the swine when the demons entered into them. Further, the groves of oak trees on the plateau above would have provided the acorns they favored.”
“All three Gospel writers, then, are referring to the same event and the same participants. While Mark and Luke apparently identify the scene in a general way, locating the miracle in the extended region of the better-known city of Gerasa, Matthew, a Galilean, seems to be the more precise in his reference to Gadara.”
http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/gadara.htm
Contrary to what people believe, the murder of the infants was not actually a significant event considering that Bethlehem was a small community. The village and surrounding areas would not have had male infants more than thirty. I’m sure Herod’s henchmen would not have bothered to check the sex of the babies so female babies would most likely have been killed, too. In that case, the number of deaths could have been as high as 60. This barbaric murdering was not unique to the murder of the babies. Herod was brutal in other cases, too.
“He murdered his favorite wife's father, drowned her brother--and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders--all in a day's work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that "Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men" (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old--to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.”
So why did Josephus not record these events? Most likely because he deemed it too insignificant. It was just another of Herod’s murder sprees. Also, another event eclipsed the murder of the babies and that was just before Herod died he gave orders that 3000 of the nation’s leading citizens be slain. He wanted mass mourning when he died. So the murder of up to 60 babies was actually not worth mentioning.
http://bible.org/article/birth-jesus-christ
Since Jesus was in the wilderness, Satan obviously tempted him when Jesus was in the mountain. He used the opportunity when Jesus was hungry and alone. Satan gave him the vision.
Jesus must have told the disciples about the visions and the gospel writers wrote that down from oral tradition. Perhaps there were witnesses to the conversation between Pilate and Jesus?
Who said they didn’t notice? These things were only worth writing about when Christianity took off and then we had the fire of Jerusalem that destroyed everything.
Well, Jesus’ writings would never have survived because He would have to carry it around with Him all the time and obviously it would disintegrate. Paul, however, wrote letters to the following people: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, and to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Some scholars believe he also wrote the letter to the Hebrews. He would not have carried those letters around with him for years.
I think because Paul knew that the Christians knew the gospels already and so there was no need to regurgitate the gospels.
Mark’s gospel was clearly incomplete because it could have been lost. We have the other two gospels to corroborate what happened.
What are you referring to in particular?
You need to give me more information.
Which writers referred the Christians by that name just after the mid century?
So you think.
Dear Claire,
The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically.
Biblical scholars and clergy alike have always had difficulty accepting the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called “Nazareth.” They have always resisted this possibility and sometimes, quite vigorously.
The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."
Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud (the Jewish law code), nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages, and Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD), a widely traveled historian who never missed anything and who voluminously describes the region. The name is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
The first reference to Nazareth is in the New Testament where it can be found 29 different times. However, there is still cause for speculation as to whether or not the city existed at the time of Jesus. It is mentioned only in the Gospels and Acts. These books do refer to Nazareth, but they did not originate at this time, they are later writings. The earlier writings of the NT (Paul etc) mention Jesus 221 times - but never mention Nazareth. Jesus from Nazareth or Jesus NAZARENE?
“In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approx. 100m x 150m. on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. This "Venerated Area" underwent extensive excavation in 1955-65 by the Franciscan priest Belarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology." Fr. Bagatti has been the principal archaeologist at Nazareth. His book, "Excavations in Nazareth" (1969) is still the standard reference for the archaeology of the settlement, and is based on excavations at the Franciscan Venerated Area.
Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC). Thus, a substantial settlement existed in the Nazareth basin during those eras. However, lack of archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when many towns in the area were destroyed by the Assyrians.
From the New Testament times and associations;
According to the Gospel of Luke, Nazareth was the home of Joseph and Mary and the site of the Annunciation (when Mary was told by the Angel Gabriel that she would have Jesus as her son); in the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph and Mary resettle in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt from their home in Bethlehem.[23] The differences and possible contradictions between these two accounts of the nativity of Jesus are part of the Synoptic Problem. Nazareth is also where Jesus allegedly grew up from some point in his childhood.
James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[26] Strange - supposing the existence of a settlement - originally guessed Nazareth’s population at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[27] Some have argued that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[28]”
You see Claire; the problem is that neither Luke nor Matthew (the gospel writers) was the apostles of Jesus. They didn’t know Jesus, and they do contradict each other in their writings. They are also partly responsible for confusion of Jesus with Horus.
“Matthew the Evangelist is complex for a number of reasons. Both Epiphanius and Jerome state that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The gospel to bear the name "Matthew" was written anonymously, with tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew at a later date. Both the style of Greek used and the means of describing events lead a few to conclude that the author of the gospel was not a companion of the historic Jesus.”
Jesus was Nazarene; however, he was not from Nazareth.
However, if Jesus was not from Nazareth but Nazarene, then who were the Nazarenes?
"Modern Hebrew usage
In contemporary Israeli Hebrew, the term "Notzri" (נוצרי) - likely to be derived from or related to "Nazarene" - is the general word for "Christian".
In Arabic Language
In all Arab countries Christians are called "Nasara" "نصارى"(Plural of Nasrani نصراني). The term "Nasara" is used many times in the Qur'an when referring to Christians. For example, Surat AL-BAQARA (Verse No. 113) says:
2:113. The Jews say: "Al-nasara (The Christians) have naught (to stand) upon;" and Al-nasara (The Christians) say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.
– Yusuf Ali's Qur'an Translation, AL-BAQARA 113
The "Canons of the Church of Alexandria" (2nd-3rd century AD) uses the term "Nazarene" to refer to non-Jewish believers.
The origin of the name "Nazarenes" is uncertain. Because Jesus himself was sometimes called "the Nazarene", one frequent suggestion is that the name was derived from "Nazareth".
But many language experts think that this is unlikely.
Much of the uncertainty stems from the fact that ancient writers spelled the name in several different ways, including "Nazirenes", "Nazaraeans", "Nazoreans", and "Notzrim".
Claire, I don’t know if you know the official Catholic Bible (Vulgate), and the Saint who put this Bible together in the 4 century AD. His name was Jerome. He was called the Doctors of the Church
This info about Jerome is from THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
(Latin Doctores Ecclesiae) — Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The "four Doctors" became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. "Gloriosus", de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).
Saint Jerome: Biography and Online Writings
Saint Jerome was born around 342 AD in a town on the Eastern Adriatic coast, in the imperial territory the Romans called Dalmatia. He studied in Rome, where he was baptized, and everntually became a monk. St. Jerome learnt Hebrew while spending a few years in Syria as a hermit. After His ordination to the priesthood, he traveled to Rome where he served as the secretary of Pope Damasus from 382-385. After the Pope's death, he settled in Bethlehem where he founded a monastery and dedicated himself to study and the translation of the Scriptures from the original languages into Latin. St. Jerome's translation, known as the Vulgate, was used in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church for over 1,000 years.
The biblical scholarship of St. Jerome was extraordinary, and he remains one of the greatest Scripture scholars, Fathers, and Doctors of the Catholic Church. He died ten years before St. Augustine, in 420 AD.
This info is about Augustine of Hippo who was a friend of Jerome.
Augustine of Hippo (Nov. 13, 354 – Aug. 28, 430) was one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. In Roman Catholicism, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church. In the introduction to his book City of God, Etienne Gilson writes “SAINT AUGUSTINE was one of those towering figures who so dominated his age that the age itself bears his name.”
In the letter to Saint Augustine Saint Jerome (Hierom in Latin) wrote:
“ Hieron., "Epist. ad August.": "There is to-day among the Jews throughout all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called [the heresy] of the Minaei, and is even until this day cursed by the Pharisees; these Minaeans are commonly called Nazoraeans, and they believe in Christ, the Son of God. . . . But while they will be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians."”
if
Nazoreans = Minaeans
then
Jesus Nazorean = Jesus Minaean
But who were the MINAEANS?
Again, you didn't answer my original question. Supposing this guy lived, still we have no idea what he said or did. His divinity and miracles are later thrust upon him(may even the son of god title). This happens even now. (heard of Sai baba from India?
So what made you think that this guy is the true god, while all other claimants are fake?
Why a Christians' holy ghost chose to reveal to him jesus, while muslims' ghost reveal to him allah, or rather why this ghost chose to act first through human media only(like Christian parents, teachers or mercenaries[You call them missionaries, gods salesmen], instead of directly revealing?I iterate, if you have a personal relationship with Him the gospels will appear very accurate! If you want to know more about what I meant, read my response to Eaglekiwi about what happened to me at church.
As I have said before, Allah is a god, a moon one to be exact. Study the history of Islam and that becomes apparent. Unfortunately, moon gods are actually Satan.
We cannot see God in His brilliance! His way of reaching out to us was through a divine human being. God can identify with our suffering because He has been there. He knows what it is like to be lonely, feel joy, etc, as a human being. With all due respect to Muslims, can Allah identify with us being human?
Jesus needed to die to take on the penalty of sin, which is hell, in a public manner so that He can prove evil and death have been conquered by resurrecting. There could be many witnesses to that.
And Jesus also came to teach us about God for who He really is and not what the OT says He is. That did not bode well with the Pharisees.One man's God is another man's devil...
If you have personal relationship with krishna, gita will be accurate, similarly koran and allah, .....
You got the relationship with jesus, only because you knew about jesus beforehand. if you were a hindu, it would've been krishna or any of there gods, if you were buddhist, it would have been buddha....
Personal experiences are explained by neurology and psychiatry, unfortunately is vast topic to be described here.
Same could be said about jesus too.
I cannot answer for muslims, but if you stimulate your brain(sometimes it does not even need an external stimuli) you can experience anything, including oneness with the universe
If your god actually did that, then he is a barbaric idiot. When somebody can't die, then sleeping for three days is not a great thing.
But we do not know what jesus taught, we only know what others wanted him to teach.Where did you get the idea Jesus couldn't die?
They killed Him DEAD. The Roman Centurion confirmed that. (This wasn't his first ever crucifixion.) Jesus' body was just like yours and mine. He was born ,and He could die, which He, in fact did. If not, but was merely sleeping for three days, it would not be considered a resurrection.
That's laughable!
Virtually not a single doctrine that Jesus taught would be something others would have wanted to hear!
Even to this very day, people get very uncomfortable with the message Jesus preached.
(True to the OP, many Atheists are displaying their intelligence, just using better language and grammar than the example in the OP.)
Please, keep them coming!You didn't read all the conversation, did you?
A person who never lived cannot die.
A god cannot die.
If anybody can get after three or say 1 year of death, that is not death.
Asking somebody to follow the law of old, which advocates stoning to death of children who disobey there parents, are uncomfortable indeed.
Rest of his teachings are already taught by Buddha and Confucius.You are right in asking me that I never read the conversation.
that, however doesn't change what I wrote.
Denying the existence of Jesus Christ is a ridiculous position to take.
Feel free to hold that view, though. But don't be surprised if you are not taken seriously as a result.
"A" god, didn't die. A MAN named Jesus of Nazareth died.
He was as much human as devine. So, what's your point?
Perhaps stoning doesn't go down too well these days, but what success does our "correctional system" have in taking reprobaste criminals off the streets, and rehabilitating them? Not a very good one, I suggest. (BTW, the law you refer to was not imposed on children, but young men who were reprobate!)
Again, feel free to hold your opinion in greater regard than others hold theirs.
It's natural that people are more likely to know Jesus in a Christian household because they were introduced to Him. However, many atheists have converted to Christianity and have said how Jesus has saved their lives. I've heard of atheists converting because of near death experiences. I am curious to know why people convert to Islam, for example. It's probably because they marry a Muslim but I would like another explanation.
I hardly believe all cases have been studied. I'm sure there are some neurology explanations in a lot of cases but not all.
I assure you that is not the case.
First of all, the Pharisees and the high chiefs handed over Jesus to the Romans to be killed, not God. He was led to His death because He would not deny He was the son of God. I'm not sure where you got the idea Jesus couldn't die since He had a mortal body if that is what you mean by, "When somebody can't die". Without death, there could be no resurrection and no conquering of evil. It is in death that the unrepentant evil send themselves to hell by completely separating themselves from God. That is why Jesus said, "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" Hell is the complete separation from God.
I iterate again, those who have personal relationships with the Holy Spirit do know what Jesus taught.The same is true for muslims, hindus.... Either they are born to that particular households, or because of "experiences".
Surely all "experiences" are due to brain.
I didn't mean jesus is a moon god, but just like allah is synthesized from a preexisting god, Jesus too was, by syncretization of pre-existing religion with some imagination.
What I meant was, if your god cannot forgive humans without blood/death, he is the most barbaric idiot. Why the all powerful god and his illegitimate son need to die to conquer death? Isn't this god supposed to be omnipotent?
Anybody who claim to have relationship with non existing entities are said to be hallucinating.
Again there are so many people who claim to have relationship with ghost, say different things. There are so many who have relationship with god, who teaches about entirely different gods. OR why your subjective claims be given merit over anybody else'?Yes, but that doesn't explain atheist experiences.
You know that is not what I meant. I meant neurological explanations that can explain why people believe things that aren't real or something of the sort. Sometimes it's schizophrenia or bipolar.
I don't know how many times I have to explain to people that Jesus is not based on some previous pagan beliefs. Which ones are you speaking of specifically?
Sorry, I can't explain this better than I have.
I agree.
Why don't you find out for yourself and pray to Jesus?Atheists do not sprang from earth and live out of the society. Most were educated from their childhood about god. When they have "visions" and some "near death experiences", they naturally associate it with the first thing they know.
Again you are wrong. Seizures/microseizures indeed can produce visions. It may not be always the common "epilepsy", which the common public is familiar about. Stimulation of appropriate areas of brain can produce any experience or vision you talk about. Man is a "pattern seeker" and "association" animal, hence he, especially since he knew very little about neurology associate it with religious/god experience.
Not one, that is the problem/advantage. Aesculapius, Prometheus, Moses, The teacher or righteousness of Essene, the Buddha, jesus ben pandeira, jewish, egyptian,roman gods and emperors,Mithra, gnostics, the phoenix....the list is almost unending.
And what little you explained is ridiculous.
Yet you claim you are guided by some ghost.
Sorry, first thing there is no god. So, even if this jesus ever lived, it will be like praying to another dead human.
Buddhist monks, can after meditation, can feel oneness with the universe. This is by stimulating some areas of brain. Your prayer is like that, it stimulate and action followed by prayer brings the result, there is no supernatural, only things that can be perfectly explained.(And only such things happened, no miracles ever occur due to prayer.And you know this as a fact?
So what you are saying is that it is a fact that visions are always due to seizures and other neurological disorders?
So they are all born of virgins, were crucified and ascended into heaven, etc? Where are you sources?
Okay, if you say so.
Take note of the "non existing entities" part. God exists.
I don't think you can state that as a fact. You don't know what I know and clearly aren't interested in finding out. You don't know what happens in my life.
Believe what you want to believe. Don't let me stop you.I should, otherwise my medical studies will be an utter waste.
I won't call it disorder, let's say aberration[What I said was any form of stimuli can cause this]. After all everybody dreams.
No they all are not, but some are. Like, the infanticide happened during Moses and Krishna's birth. And the jews/paul/christians are not people who are totally devoid of imagination not to come up with something original. They missed some earlier stories and some of their own imagination to create a new one, over a century(You might know about the councils and synads)
What is this "god" you claim to exist. The name "god" resolves to no object in this universe.
Anybody who can think rationally and logically can know it as a fact.
What happened in your life is subjective. If you were brought up in a muslim/hindu household, you would argue just as vociferously for Allah/Krishna.
Again you are wrong. I don't believe in "god's non existence". Belief in existence/non-existence is irrational. You don't believe the sun exist, the sun just exist. Try to know the difference, may be then you'll be a little more open minded and won't see everything through a christian eyes.Do you really think that the infanticide of Moses' time means that the infanticide by Herod didn't happen? So if a king was assassinated a thousand years ago would mean that another king thousands of years later could not have happened? What about Krishna? Do you believe he was born of a virgin? Where is your proof?
Would it surprise you if I said God I'm referring to is the Father of Christ?
Still doesn't make it a fact. Sorry. It's just one of those things you can't prove or disprove.
Now you are being belligerant. The difference between the sun and God is that you can see the sun and not God.
Quite frankly, I actually don't care whether you "believe" in God's existence or not.I told you, I don't say Jesus story is an exact reproduction of earlier ones. I said it is a mix of many earlier ones.
So have proof of jesus virgin birth? (A mistaken translation of isaiah)
According to Bible the supposed father is joseph? is he the god? Or is it the heavenly being that impregnated mary?((And committing adultery against his own laws)
If it is the latter, then please tell me what else he can do(other than impregnating virgins, of course)
In Mahabharata there are 5 Pandavas who were born to virgin mothers, are they too impregnated by the same fellow?
Disprove in what way, you think you are the only person in this world with "god experience"? Do you think only you have the "proofs" for you god while all other people are believing hearsay?
So sun does not exist for a blind person??!!
The difference is sun is an object with shape and we know what exactly what somebody mean by "sun", while god is a concept and a word that carry no particular meaning.
Copying and pasting this amount of data makes you sound almost intelligent, Claire. I suspect you are not the expert in this area. Which book/Website did you get it all from?
What did you expect me to do? Type out the whole thing myself to appear "intelligent"? It's not as if my entire comment is a copy and paste. Anyway, I suspect you wrote what you did because you had no refutation.
Sources:
http://y-jesus.com/bornid_article.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm
(Imagine how egotistical HE must have sounded to claim He was the son of God.)
Claire,
Not egotistical - simply nuts. Like this guy: "David Shayler (1965–), former MI5 agent and whistleblower who, in the summer of 2007, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah...."
(It can be perceived as extremely arrogant to say for a fact that Jesus is not the son of God)
Yet, I would bet that you would unequivocably claim for a fact that David Shayler is not the son of god.Okay, I am nuts, too, so move along.
Did David Shayler prove to be the messiah? If not, he is nuts or a liar. Jesus did, however.
How can anyone claim for a fact that what I am saying here is dead wrong? If every person here thought 100% I was talking nonsense here, they'd ignore me. Why try and debate with a delusional idiot such as myself?
I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to answer me honesty. Are you 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God? That is there not iota of doubt and that is it completely impossible that He is?Jesus didn't, it is as you said, hearsay.
Because it was a delusional, who was indoctrinated in Islam, who flew a flight into WTO.
It depends solely on what yo call god. If, by god, you mean a super human deity as described in bible, it is 100% sure there is no god, nor a god's son.
Again the christian version of god and son is a clever play of words, it takes the meaning out of the word son.
On the other hand, by god you mean the pantheist version, that the whole universe is god, not only jesus, everything in this universe can be called god or son of god as anybody wishes, that is not what you are implying , I think."Because it was a delusional, who was indoctrinated in Islam, who flew a flight into WTO."
Huh?
I can see why you claim that Jesus is definitely not the son of God. Satan has fooled you into believe you are god and that everyone else is. What kind of gods do we make when this world is so screwed up?
There is something called the New Age Movement that is indoctrinating people into believing they are gods. That in the New Age, they will have "Christ Consciousness". Yes, New Age will be the one world religion and Lucifer shall be the god to be worshipped. And you won't have a choice about that.Don't put words in to my mouth. I clearly stated the "pantheistic view".
There is no god, nor satan, unless you believe a book/books written by ancient charlatans.I was just curious why you picked out the pantheist example and not pagan gods, for example. Out of interest sake, do you have that view or does that view appeal you. Yes, I jumped the gun, sorry. It means I must take a break. My brain is getting woozy.
However, it is still the truth that you are being deceived by Satan, most likely due to a subconscious indoctrination of the New Age Movement, because you assert as a fact that Jesus is not the son of God.Didn't the dear boy say the same thing himself? That's what the Muslims say..
Satan is a figment of your imagination Claire. Your imagination does not equate to truth.
There's nothing more for us to say, really.
- Wow!
In other words, refuting Claire's ridiculous religious beliefs means we are being fooled and deceived by Claire's ridiculous religious beliefs.And, that is precisely why you have zero credibility.
Do you have credibility when you falsely claimed that Zoroaster was born of a virgin and crucified?
Christian or pagan, both are similar. Deistic and pantheistic is different, deist didn't come to my mind then.(according to deist view, there can be no son of god). Your question was about son of god, what I said was according to theistic view that may be, but the view itself is wrong, while pantheistic view changes the definition of god, so anything is correct, according to that view.
How do you feel, if I accuse you of being the devil himself, came here to mislead the true believers?
In has nothing to do with any movement(I've no idea about the new age movement anyway), what I assert is, for there to be a son of god, there should be a god and christian version of god and satan are mere figments of imagination.You can think I'm the devil himself. You can think that. However, difference between you and me is that you don't believe in the devil and I know he exists so your claim would not be serious.
You don't have to know what the New Age movement or what theosophy is to be indoctrinated by their teachings. It is actually quite outward now. More and more people are abandoning Christianity in favour. I'm sure Zeitgeist caused many Christians to renounce their faith.Suppose it is a Muslim guy who make the accusation?
Exactly, your accusation of me being lead by devil carry the same wait-age you give to the muslim guy accusing you. If I'm lead by devil, so are you!
Doesn't make what the Muslim Guy say not true, though.
Dear Claire,
Jesus is 100% the Son of God and 100% the son of Mary.
Can you prove that He was the son of Mary?
John 1
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."Since the NT is not considered evidence then no.
In all fairness, it is rather hard to accept. Too much alteration, too many versions, too many translations (some of which have led to amusing doctrinal flip-flops), too much delay..
I flatly reject any concept of a god on logical grounds, but I do understand why people might choose to believe otherwise. I have much more respect for those who see religious writings for what they are: the outpourings of some previous believer. They can contain lovely thoughts, and of course the opposite too, but it would be hard to fault anyone who said they enjoyed them as spiritual guidance. As evidence.. well, that's just too much to ask.Huh? In some other post you said something like you don't believe in the Hebrew scriptures because you don't like the God that is represented there. Now you say that the NT isn't evidence. So what do you believe and what do you base it on?
I don't believe what is said about God in the OT because it contradicts Jesus. And when I say the New Testament is not evidence, I mean it cannot possibly be considered evidence to non believers. Face it, if I said, "Yes, there is evidence that Mary was the mother of God, look in the NT!", you would have said that it wasn't proof of anything. Right? So I just preempted you.
There is only proof of Jesus' existence and not of His divinity according to historical records. What I know of Jesus comes primarily from my relationship with Him. The Spirit is alive and can communicate with those who want to. Of course the scriptures are great corroboration but it would mean nothing without the Holy Spirit Himself.
Claire, why don't you look in to history ?
Something worth to be considered from Rodovid Pages:
" I (Esus) Maharajasa Soter (Kujula ben Heraios)
b. ~ April
d. 33
Person:156202
Full Tree
Descendants (Inventory)
Lineage House of David - Araunah
Sex Male
Full name (at birth) Kadphises I (Esus) Maharajasa Soter
Other last names Kujula ben Heraios
Other given names Ivaldus (Norse), Javidus (Dacian), Iēsoûs (Greek), Yashas (, Rajavula II, Eresius (Vita Triparta), Sosiosh (Madean), Jihonika (Turkic), Zeionises (Parthian) , Jihonika (Kaskan) , Qiujiuque Da Yuezhi(Chinese), Guānzìzài (Chinese), Yen-Kaotching (Chinese), Kadphises (Parthian), Isa (Aramaic Sources), Isetizeus (Egyptian), Yoshua (Hebrew), Adsho (Iranian), Chenrezig (Tibetan), Avalokitesvara (Sanskrit)
Parents
♂ # Joseph II Phasael [Herodian] b. -40 - (guardian - not natural father of Jesus)
♀ # Miryam Al Imran (Il Araunah) (Parthénos) [House of David - Araunah] b. 8 September -15? d. ~ 42
Wiki-page wikipedia:Kujula_Kadphises"Where'd you get this information from? Not convinced yet.
(I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to answer me honesty. Are you 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God? That is there not iota of doubt and that is it completely impossible that He is?)
Claire,
I will answer you but first, answer this. Are you 100% certain that a tiny meteor traveling at 25,000 miles per hour is not aimed at your head right this second and about to slam into you and kill you? If you are not 100% sure, then why aren't you hiding in a cave?
To answer your question, no, I am not 100% sure that Jesus was not the son of god - I am equally not 100% sure Jesus ever lived.
What I have is all anyone has - inductive reasoning and intuition. I am convinced that Jesus was not the son of god, though, as there is no objective, repeatable testing that verifies that claim. I am not in the habit of believing someone else's subjective claims as proof.
If Jesus is who he said he was and his word was his bond, then Christians should be able to gather together, pray, and restore an amputee's missing limb - and they should be able to do this over and over again under testable conditions.
In over 2000 years, though, no group of Christians has been able to pass this test. Therefore, the claims about Jesus healing powers and prayer found in the New Testament are highly likely to be bogus.
Do I know for 100% certainty that Jesus was not the son of god? No, but, then, I don't live in a cave, either. And you never know when a meteor will hit you in the head.Of course I'm not sure! Hiding in a cave won't do me that much good.
I think you can be more sure that Jesus lived than Him being the son of God. There's more evidence for Him than anyone else in antiquity. Of course the most convincing is extra-biblical sources.
I never said what I have to say is proof. You keep addressing me.
As for your amputee argument, go over my comments I've written for ATM. You don't prove Jesus's divinity under "testable" conditions. He is not a genie. The spiritual enrichment that comes out of suffering is far more plentiful than someone who loses a leg then regains it the next day. Faith would not be needed and that is the crux of the Christian religion. God can work through people to make prosthetic legs for the amputee.
When the amputee argument comes up, I also think of the Lieutenant in Forrest Gump who lost his legs. He resented Forrest for saving his life because he was now a cripple. Later on, the Lt was so spiritually refined that he thanked Forrest for saving his life. Life was more meaningful as an amputee than being a Lieutenant. He got prosthetic legs and found love.
What we think is best for us is not necessarily what God thinks. He sees the end result when he don't.
I'm curious, why are you investing so much time into me? Are you hoping to make me see reason? If so, why? Is it important to you?Not actually. You will need to elaborate.
Yes, actually.
I need to elaborate? Your fantasy god can't know the future if it allows free will to creatures like us. At best it can only be aware of all possible futures - that's not omniscience as it never really knows what WILL happen, only the various possibilities.
Some theists defend this with the "collapse" or "narrowing" theory - that it doesn't matter what individual choices we make because, like atoms dancing in in a solid object, the end result is still a solid object. That's nonsense reductionism.
Others argue that the god will foresee your choice. That's more nonsense, as that is then determinism and not free will at all.
Still others argue that the god chooses to be ignorant of certain things - which of course agrees that it loses its omniscience; giving it up to allow free will doesn't change that it is lost.
Then there is the ridiculous "outside of time" view, which fails because it kills both omniscience and omnipotence and implies determinism.
These are some of the least of your creatures logical contradictions. But never fear: someone will lay out a giant pile of inherently incohesive word salad that will purport to show that Invisible Pal can do all this and more. It won't really make any sense, but it will twist around enough to sound convincing and you can sleep soundly tonight, still believing every single thing that makes you happy.
There really is no past, present and future. They are happening all at once. For example, how is it possible that future events depicted in Revelation can occur if it hasn't happened already? How is it possible that Revelation could predict everyone taking the mark so that no one can buy and sell if it hasn't happened yet? This truly is in the pipeline. Nick Rockefeller said to a friend who subsequently had an interview revealing this that there is the ultimate plan to microchip people so that they cannot make transactions and be considered a legal entity unless they have this microchip.
One could argue that free will of people could change the course of history. If we consider the theory that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously, then free will and determinism becomes compatible.
It is Albert Einstein who came across this theory that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously.
He writes:
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."
"The distinction between past, present and the future is only an illusion."
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
Next article excerpts:
"There is a temporal realm called the Planck scale, where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning—is 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? Tempus incognito. At least for now.
Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”
The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics."
"he possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.” It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum. Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future. All the laws—whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules—would work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.
“It’s quite mysterious why we have such an obvious arrow of time,” says Seth Lloyd, a quantum mechanical engineer at MIT. (When I ask him what time it is, he answers, “Beats me. Are we done?”) “The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in … =0&-C=
If you want to read the argument against this theory, here's the page:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-sci … nsion.html
It doesn't undermine God's omniscience and omnipotence. What we do in the present determines the course of events, which obvious God knows about, it is the future as well and that is why it appears to us that God can see the future. It's all about perception. Regarding omnipotence, one could argue that God doesn't have power of those who reject Him because He has given them free will but He actually has chosen not to exercise that power because of that gift.
It's also important to remember our minds are finite. We cannot fathom everything about Him regarding omniscience, etc. We can only know what kind of God He is and that is like Jesus.
Sad for all those who lost limbs before decent prosthetics..
Even sadder for those who won't live to see the day (soon approaching) when science provides the regrown limbs that Jesus will not..Those surgeons and specialists that create that limb were created to do exactly that-so why can't God be credited for His creation ,ie mankind.
I mean if one critiques a source ,surely it should not be so one sided
Just sayin..
(I'm curious, why are you investing so much time into me?)
Claire,
That is a fair question. I suppose it comes from your assertions of fact that are not always factual. Regardless of who you are, facts should be presented without bias attached.
For example, you make this claim about Jesus: (There's more evidence for Him than anyone else in antiquity. Of course the most convincing is extra-biblical sources.)
This is simply a false presentation. There is zero evidence of the existence of a historical figure named Jesus from a single contemporary. The only evidence comes from scripture, and none of those are first-hand accounts and all are biased.
As far as historicity is concerned, the evidence for Jesus is of the worst possible kind.
You also said, (You don't prove Jesus's divinity under "testable" conditions.)
And I previously addressed this issue when I said, "I am not in the habit of believing someone else's subjective claims as proof."
If a claim cannot be objectively tested to determine its validity, then all we have left are blind guesses. Denying objective evidence is needed does nothing to forward your assertions of divinity.You want to know when the main sources for Alexander the Great's existence is? Writings from Greek writers 300-500 years after Alexander the Great's death. He couldn't have existed then! It must be a fairy tale because no contemporaries wrote about him.
I'll copy and paste the argument I posted someone else last week:
“In 336 B.C. Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia. A military genius, this handsome, arrogant leader swept through villages, towns, and kingdoms of Greco-Persia until he ruled it all. It is said that he cried when there were no more worlds to conquer.
The history of Alexander is drawn from five ancient sources written 300 or more years after he died.[4] Not one eyewitness account of Alexander exists.
However, historians believe Alexander really existed, largely because the accounts of his life are confirmed by archaeology and his impact on history.”
So, do you think that Alexander the Great did not exist because there were no eye witnesses and just 5 measly sources? The first account being written 300 years after his death? Consider that 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. There’s nothing written about Julius Caesar at the time of his existence.
So is there archaeological evidence regarding what is reported in the Gospels?
In 1961 archaeologists discovered a block of limestone inscribed with the name of “Pontius Pilate prefect of Judea.” And in 1990 archaeologists discovered an ossuary (bone box) with the inscription of Caiaphas. It has been verified as authentic “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
On December 21, 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of first-century clay shards in Nazareth, confirming that this tiny hamlet existed during the time of Christ.
Also interesting is the fact that world historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus. Roman historians didn’t.
Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”[18]
Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.[19]
This particularly is fascinating:
Roman historian Phlegon apparently has also written about a darkness around Jesus' crucifixion
Plegon's writing on history is known as "OLYMPIADES". The reference may be found in "Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum" (C. Muller) 1841- 1870, Volume 3, pages 603 - 624:
"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse [Greek = EKLEIPSIS] of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the 6th hour the day was changed into night and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicaea"
The first olympiad was held in 776 BC
Each Olympiad is 4 years
The forth year of the 202 Olympiad is 32 AD - around the time that Jesus was crucified !!!
Julius Africanus' reference to Phlegon:
Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer. And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time.
In: Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1. ( click here )
Pagan chronologer Thallus also tries to explains this away as outlines by Africanus:
A most terrible darkness fell over all the world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake, and many places both in Judaea and the rest of the world were thrown down. In the third book of his HISTORIES Thallus dismisses this darkness as a solar eclipse, unreasonably, as it seems to me. For the Hebrews celebrate the PASSOVER on Luna 14, and what happened to the Saviour occurred one day before the PASSOVER. But an eclipse of the sun takes place when the moon passes under the sun. The only time when this can happen is in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last day of the old moon, when they are in conjunction. How then could one believe an eclipse took place when the moon was almost in opposition to the sun? So be it. Let what had happened beguile the masses, and let this wonderful sign to the world be considered a solar eclipse through an optical [illusion]. Phlegon records that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete solar eclipse at full moon from the sixth to the ninth hour; it is clear that this is the one. But what have eclipses to do with an earthquake, rocks breaking apart, resurrection of the dead, and a universal disturbance of this nature
http://www.textexcavation.com/thallustestimonium.html
Historians cite the following evidence for Jesus’ existence:
• Archaeological discoveries continue to verify the Gospel accounts of people and places they record, the latest being Pilate, Caiaphas and the existence of first-century Nazareth.
• Thousands of historical writings document Jesus’ existence. Within 150 years of Jesus’ life 42 authors mention him in their writings, including nine non-Christian sources. During that same time period, only nine secular authors mention Tiberius Caesar; only five sources report the conquests of Julius Caesar. Yet no historian denies their existence.[53]
• Historians, secular and religious, readily acknowledge Jesus Christ has influenced our world more than any other person.
After investigating the Christ-myth theory, the great world historian Will Durant concluded that, unlike the gods of mythology, Jesus was a real person. [54]
The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend.
Historian Paul Johnson states that all serious scholars acknowledge Jesus as real. [55]
Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “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.”[56]
More about what he said:
In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.
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.
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm
http://www.y-jesus.com/index.php(You want to know when the main sources for Alexander the Great's existence is? Writings from Greek writers 300-500 years after Alexander the Great's death. He couldn't have existed then! It must be a fairy tale because no contemporaries wrote about him.)
Claire,
You do a fine job of attacking and defeating strawmen. I pointed out a single fallacy of this assertion of yours: (There's more evidence for Him than anyone else in antiquity).
That assertion is simple not factual. There is zero evidence outside of second and third-hand accounts. There are no roads, bridges, towns or villages that bear his name. There is no mention of him in any Roman records. There is no depiction of him on a coin. There is no picture drawn of him. Even if we take your claims about Alexander and compare those to Jesus we see that no secular writers wrote about Jesus - they mentioned followers and the Christian sect - but they did not write about Jesus. You may also note that archaeology does not provide any evidence of Jesus. Alexander the Great had 20 cities names after him, including Alexandria in Egypt. There are busts of his image.
I do not dispute that there was a Jewish rabbi who possibly had the name Jesus. I simply dispute that the historical evidence is as you claim.
Posting a thousand word reply as to why you believe is not the same thing as offering validation of your claims.First of all, who would have documented during His ministry? Would the material have survived? Do we have access to all records of those who were crucified? Did all of them survive?
Historians do not base their findings on hearsay.
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
This historian stated Jesus' existence as fact. In fact, he only stated fact and if it wasn't established would not have stated it as fact. This is an example of other writings of his:
"The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus—more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed."
No hearsay writings.
Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4
THALLUS (pagan chronologist) (~ 52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explanation of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar eclipse) but Africanus argues (and any astronomer can confirm) a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets. Phlegon of Tralles, a 2nd century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time... Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak. Chronography XVIII, 47
Celsus was an avid hater of Christian and Roman author. In fact, he made fun of Jesus:
On Jesus' Miracles: "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..."
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
The interesting thing to note is that none of these people ever denied Jesus' existence. Yes, they didn't believe His divinity, but His existence was never in dispute.
I don't know why you think it is appropriate to dismiss historians and scholars that I quoted above. What towns and bridges do you should have bore His name? In Jerusalem that was razed to the ground in 70 AD? In Galilee when He was an obscure religious leader? Why should Jesus have His face minted on coins? Was He of the status of Alexander at the time of His ministry? Lol, if you are saying Jesus' existence is in dispute because no picture was drawn on Him during His time is rather laughable. Do you think the Romans draw a picture of Him when He was crucified?
Be reasonable now.I see I've previously quoted ancient historians account of Jesus. I suppose I forgot because I didn't believe it was possible that you didn't think that was credible evidence.
Face it, you just don't want to believe Jesus is as He is depicted in the gospels.
I think even among Christians you will find disagreement as to whether he ever said that.
An awful lot of "stuff" is known to be added to Biblical works and we also know that lying for the greater good was not seen as anything wrong. The Church needed Jesus to be a god because pagans wouldn't give much respect to a mere prophet/spiritual leader - those were a dime a dozen and all had their own "miracles" as currency. Because the church needed converts, they gave the folks what they wanted - a god.
Ya know ? the more we over intelectialize everything, the more we miss the point,,,???????
- jomineposted 13 years ago0
For argument sake, lets agree the was a man named Jesus, but how do we know what he said? All we have is non eyewitness accounts in gospel, which as Winston said, are copies of copies, which was edited through out history. In the oldest available gospel of the oldest gospel mark, there is no resurrection. So the claim to god might have been added later. Again people who claim to be god are dime a dozen, through out history, so why should this particular claim be given any merit?
Spirit/Ghost, holy or not, is a figment of imagination. Your particular spirit is telling you about jesus, while my neighbor's spirit is telling him about Krishna.
And in the psychiatry wards we have people with spirits telling them so many bizarre things, so what makes you and your jesus special?There are many well known characters that have no historical reference ,except what another man has recorded.
No,we choose whom we want to believe and usually we choose the person who doesn't require we change our attitudes(There are many well known characters that have no historical reference ,except what another man has recorded)
Eaglekiwi,
You both misunderstand historicity and misrepresent the facts that are the basis of the argument. Historians place greater weight on evidence when outside sources validate it.
Think of it this way: if a vacuum saleman claimed his vaccum was the best in the world, the claim would mean little. But if non-customers in all 50 states wrote about what a terrific vacuum this guy sold, his claim would be afforded more weight, and we would be more apt to believe it.
With regard to Jesus, the only references to him come from the New Testament, which was written after the fact by biased persons interested in passing on their beliefs. That there were some secular accounts that wrote about followers gives some extra credence to the claims and leads one to conclude that there probably was a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who may have been crucified.
But that is the extent of the references - a few vacuum saleman claiming their brand was the best, while a few Romans wrote about those salesman bothering the Romans in their neighborhood..Ok ,but you are analysing God using a human mind. No disrespect,but God can not be studied or understood without the Holy Spirit. who teaches ,guides and interepts.That is the major difference for a start.
See ,the world is viewed by intellects through an intellectually mind,nothing wrong with that ,except its not enough ,they will not get it -without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Spiritually God wanted his truths understood by ALL,not something to be aquired scholarly,but by ALL people.
Secondly we know something all powerful and all knowing created something,because we (even the best scientists that ever lived) know all the answers ,or discovered how to reverse the damage.
Science is to be respected for many things, but it will always be limited,always searching ,and always coming up with new theories.
That is the nature of Science.
That is not the nature of God.
Gods word has remained constant.- So, we can't understand one invisible mythical entity with the use of another invisible mythical entity.
That makes no sense at all.
And, believers will always come along and dishonesty make false claims about science and theories without knowing about a thing about them.
Until he did a flip-flop and changed them entirely. (God can not be studied or understood without the Holy Spirit. who teaches ,guides and interepts.)
Eaglekiwi,
No disrespect either, but do you realize how circular your reasoning is? There is no doubt that William Lane Craig is a smart guy, but his assertion that in matters of faith that if evidence and reason argue against the evidence from the holy ghost then one should abandon reason and evidence and believe the unbelievable.
Smart people can have quite the blind spots, it seems.
Eagle, do you at least understand that what you profess is subjective interpretation of those things that cannot be known to humans? If the metaphysical is real, we are not privy to its secrets. Then it becomes a battle of whom to believe - Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Jains?
The only sure way out of this trap of chosing among the unknowable is to demand objective evidence - when none can provide it, that is an answer all by itself, now, isn't it?
If there are many and they are well known, then you should be able to provide plenty of examples.
No, we don't choose whom we want to believe, we use evidence to base an understanding.Well sure like you provide proof
But its not YOUR evidence ,its someone else's that you have chosen to believe.
Pretty lame if you ask meI don't "believe" in evidence, I understand it. And, it is evidence you choose to ignore or deny in favor of faith based fantasies.
That isn't lame, that's tragic.
Thanks for being honest about yourself. Hope you don't extrapolate yourself to others.
I have been a Christian since I was born. When I was eleven years old, I got baptized and tried to follow God all the time because I wanted to be the best I could be for God. My parents never questioned me because I never gave them anything to worry about it. Then I did my thing, when I was 18 years old to 23 years old because I wanted to experience different things, but it never satisfied me. When I turned to God again, when I was 24 years old, then I realized, that God was my happiness. I am back again reading my Holy Bible, going to church, witnessing, showing God through me, meeting new people, faith, bible study and working with children too. I have trust issues because certain people teased me about my beliefs. That is wrong. I got bullied in school because I was in a different class. God is my everything, family, friends, pets and other people too. I hope you enjoy. God bless you all. This people to answer questions, now. Why don't believe in God? What did God do to you? What do you think of a faith in God? What do you think of religion? What do you think of the Holy Bible? What do you think of prayer? I believe in God because he answers my prayers. God saves me every time I pray to him. Faith in God means you believe in God, follow the gospel, live the gospel and witness to people too. The Holy Bible is how we learn more about God. Prayer is when you are talking to God. I am off Facebook was not safe and peoria mocked God. This is a safe site hopefully. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: do you not know that unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God. I might add more to this later. Have a great day. Talk to you later. My soul is with God.
I know I have been reading your hubs and I think that your understanding is the same as me. I believe the entire new testament is telling us to have faith. But the church tells the people to have the easy way out. They tell them that Jesus is the faithful one, and it is only human to have wavering faith. Such is definitely not the truth.
I find it interesting to read Claire's comments. It is much more evidence based than the rest. The only part is saying other people's religion as worship for moon-god is not called for. I would do my research on that.
One thing I notice is that despite all the evidence claire state, the people seems to be blind, asking for evidence when it is there, probably angered, repeating the same old "where is your evidence" all the way through. And there are even attacks on her, saying that she is the antichrist. Come on! If you can't quote your understanding,and lose to a girl, you lose to a girl, at least she is a smart girl.
People of Christian faith, I think the easiest way to be a better christian, is to pray to Jesus for a better understanding. Don't go to your ego, and say that is Jesus there. I came to the conclusion at 21, Jesus is real although parts of Bible cannot be taken seriously. I am 27 now, and living happier each day.
As a Chinese, I read Buddhism and Taoism, and realised everything fits. There are ancient books that record the man resurrecting after a flood at "yi she fu " pronounciation is like Israel. The document is also records a list of who gave birth to who, living how many years,normally above 500 like that of OT. There is even a person with a huge head, like Noah. If I were you, Claire i wouldn't dismiss OT totally.CHyNCHyN, if you researched the origin of Islam, you will realize he is, indeed, a moon god. I will copy and paste my comment I posted to another person on this forum:
In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon.
According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names."
According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36).
"In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7)
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him.
"Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
"The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).
http://www.investigateislam.com/moonGod.htm
http://mikeblume.com/moongod.htm
"In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."
So we have a moon god titled Allah before Mohammed depicted with a crescent moon. Sound familiar? In fact, the worship of the moon god Allah was the main religion in the Middle East before Mohammed.
"Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)
"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)
"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406)
"Ilah ... appears in pre-Islamic poetry ... By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry"
(Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, III:1093)
"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)
The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)
Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)
It's pretty interesting that Allah was one of the Meccan deities. Don't Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca?
Mohammed grew up with the moon-god religion. His fellow pagan Arabs
considered Allah to be the greatest of all the gods. Mohammed decided that he was going to decree Allah to be the only god. So the pagan Arabs didn't object to this since Allah was their greatest god anyway but he wanted to influence the Christians and Jews, too, by saying Allah was their god, too. However, no mention of Allah is made in either the Old or New Testament or Hebrew texts for that matter.
I've got a quote here from WikiIslam:
Islam is a monotheistic bastardization of the pre-Islamic polytheistic religion followed by the inhabitants of 7th century Arabia. Its pagan heritage is clearly evident.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam
I most certainly do not dismiss the whole of the OT.I read this already. Thanks for your effort anyway. Problem is if you search pagan origins of Christianity, you will see so much information, that you will begin to realize the Biblical story of Jesus is not Original and if posted on hub pages, will be termed plagiarism work.
Search the story of Horus, Osiris and many others, called Son of God, born of a mortal mother, performing miracles.
But I do love Jesus.If you read it previously, how can you say it is uncalled for of me to say Allah is a moon god when I've provided concrete evidence of that fact?
I like you but I get really exasperated with people who still believe that Zeitgeist junk. Horus did not have a mortal mother. She was the goddess Isis. Osiris' mother was Nut who was also a goddess. None of them were considered the son of God and did not perform miracles. Provide me with sources from mythology sites and encyclopedias, for example, to prove your claims.
Can't claim Jesus without claiming the whole Bible..
Can't elaborate here.. i just started a thread on it for peat sake... lolLol. That is absolute nonsense. How many times did Jesus contradict the OT? I'll tell you one. He said it was said that your shall repay your neighbour with an eye for an eye but I say love your neighbour and turn the other cheek. Jesus had new teachings contrary to the OT and the Pharisees hated Him for that.
How much of the OT are you familiar with and its origins?Is it a contradictation if they (the Jewish) people were living under a different law ie 'An eye for an eye' Sharia law.
Jesus came not to eridicate the need for law ,but to supersede the law.
Thats my understanding anywayThat's exactly right. As Christians, we are free from the bondage of slavery. Quite frankly, that is exactly what it was. To divorce your wife because she didn't cook the food right is completely ridiculous and tyrannical.
(I find it interesting to read Claire's comments. It is much more evidence based)
Evidence-based is not the same as accurate. For example, studies have found that married people have a more positive outlook. Now, some may claim that means that marriage is a positive correlation, but the more realistic viewpoint is that people with positive outlooks are more prone to attract partners.
Why do you call Jesus a liar? What did Jesus do to you? Why do you mock Jesus? Why humiliate yourself? I think you are a liar, if you don't take time to read the Holy Bible. The scripture is proof to what I am saying to you. You just like to make people that believers look like fools and that is horrible. God will punish you for it.
I do live out the gospel, but I do sin. I am not having sex, when I am not married. I am trying to be more loving and compassionate towards other people like Jesus was. I am trying the best I can. You trash people, so you can make yourself look better. That is horrible. Have fun. Good luck.
In fact the Jews and Chinese could have shared the same heritage. The book recorded that the emperor assign nine person to be in charge of 9 different states. the flood was recorded to come from west of China. If anyone is interested, I would do a hub.
I get your very informative Claire, I can see you have alot of knowledge, but it does seem like you are being a little pushy with your information. There is a fine line between arguing your point and taking a stand, but I feel some what you want to call it, strongly negative approach going on towards others. Just saying!
Could you give me an example of a negative approach I've taken?
I think with knowledge also comes wisdom. Wisdom to decipher what is harmless and more harmful to others. I'm a little confused on your position because on your profile it says you're a Christian, You've got a lot of information, maybe innocently trying to share what you know, but as most of the time I say, example is more powerful than words. Without the example you have no merit. I may be wrong I'm just one person, so my opinion doesn't really matter, but it seems as if you are saying your diverting from Jesus and your a Christian it is a mixed message, and sometimes sounds more by the way your presenting yourself your atheist. Displaying some of the same tactics as ones that shoot for the kill to prove their is no God. Regardless of your beliefs it just is confusing what you actually stand for. It is none of my business, but not sure what exactly your message is the way your going about things.
If I have knowledge about the Holy Bible and share it, then I am obviously God's child.
What does the Holy Bible say, if you are so bright?
If you are believer of God, then you stick up for what you believe in.
Which gods? Yahweh's?
Then certainly your are not son of Allah, Brahma, Zeus, Imhotep...
How am I diverting from Jesus? What teachings of His did I contradict?? I have a feeling that your opinion may be influenced by my corresponding with Emile. Is that right? If so, what in particular? Are you telling me I shoot to kill? How am I to respond to someone who calls me an anti-Christ and treats me with such contempt. Should I be as sweet as pie? Jesus wasn't.
Jesus was never mean. He loved everybody. He healed people, that touched him. You must read that wrong in the Holy Bible, that Jesus was mean to people. Read about Jesus again in the Holy Bible. Jesus was a man with no sin. Have fun. See ya.
How have I been mean? Jesus called the Pharisees vipers and all sorts of names and went into the temple with a whip overthrowing tables. Don't mistake being intolerant of nonsense as being mean.
Claire, since you felt the need to comment on me I feel like I have the right to reply. You have been treated with no more contempt than you have offered in this thread. Disagreeing with you does not equate to contempt. And, you are not Jesus, so the comparison you made was egotistical; as well as pointless.
This is the problem with those who claim to know what absolute morality is: overweening conceit.
"overweening" - was this an accidental mis-spelling, or deliberate?
It might mean: "too much or too little suction as a baby!"("overweening" - was this an accidental mis-spelling, or deliberate?)
Jonnycomelately
Deliberate.
Miriam-Webster definition: overweening 1: arrogant, presumptuous
Or it might mean the action taken with children that causes them later in life to grasp at straws.
I can tell you like to all argue, when you know nothing about the Holy Bible.
It is funny when people argue about something, when they really don't know what they are arguing about.
Lack of knowledge of the subject gets you know where because you have no clue what you are really talking about like not reading the Holy Bible, going to church, pray and faith too.
Is the bible your only guide in life? Try reading as much about the world and learning as much as you can from everything, a basic understanding of life can be very benneficial to one's mental stabillity.
God used intellect to show me He is real..
Kikilari is learning from the mouth of God..
If there is something else needed to be learned God will lead to it.
But your advice is foolishness. You can keep it for yourself.
I'm an intellect, and have seen both sides.. Kikilari's mental stability is just fine friend.. lolWhat of religious pack mentality? Is that not a form of insanity?
This is not to say that it is not real to you, I am just saying one should learn and apply. God is a manifestation one's own mind and life can be said to be the same, happenings of perception.What of atheist pack mentality?
And it's not me it's real to, there are trillions of witnesses nay-sayers refuse to hear.
God is no manifestation. God is GOD. He is a creator. Just as we create, so we learn from Him who done so.
Perception can only be applied within the realm of reality, and the happenings are the objects and events percieved friend, not vice versa.
You cannot percieve what has not happened or what is not predicted to happen by known facts of the system following the chain of events known to take place by the systems given nature, if one is that knowledgeable.
Perception is therefore a sub standard of the events or happenings as you termed them.
God created, you percieve.
Perception as the upper category, with happenings or events beng placed within the realm therein is in essence creation and that being in your own mind.
But your mind didn't and doesn't create the physical world, it percieves what is already physically made, and anthing your mind does create is within itself unless your body becomes involved and acts upon the mental image.
What is real is real period, such as the sun, or stars, or earth.
Those are seen by eyes. God is seen by humble faith, the altering of one's method of perception and view in light thereof of themselves in relation to God.
Just as no noble king in ancient days would allow a dirt covered peasant with a prideful and cocky attitude to ever dare walk on his well maintained beautiful floors or even hear his voice through a door for his ill-manored attitude..
So the God of the universe, the creator and King of all, will not hear a mere creations plea to show Himself to him unless it is of a humble and kind approach with RESPECT toward He who deserves it. God is not a robot, and is not something that has no manner of character.
He is all powerful, but that doesn't make him a speechless beast..
No, He is rather more than able to speak, and knows the language of every physical thing created, for it was Him who placed the code therein with His words.. words of a different language and code such as dna and structures that shine and cut like that of diamonds.. words that control the laws of reality and nature and the placement and behavior of atoms and the systems they make.. systems within systems and farther than man can imagine in detail and power..
He is real, here, and the perception of humans alters nothing of reality whatsoever.
Never has, never will.
- Jerry Hulseposted 13 years ago0
I just got a few things to say.
You got to die someday and what you believe had better be good enough to die with.
You have free will to jump off a building but if you do the law of gravity is going to kinck in and when you splatter on the ground the law of God will be demanding payment for sin.
remember the mystery fog that set in when George washington was surrounded by the British? What about Benjamin Frankin talking about a supreme being who was a friend in forming this republic?
I know this God of the bible and have been eyewitness to many healings that were not fake.
There is no way the way this body is put together that one could say it evolved so believe what you will but you will die and when you do you will meet who you say does not exist.I love that analogy.. That is genius.
Mind if I quote it in a hub??? I just got inspired. lolJerry Hulse, your avatar looks like Donald Trump! Is it really you?
No offense.
People would rather argue, then listen, so you must try listening first.
Related Discussions
- 58
Religious Creationists and Scientific Atheists, is there a middle?
by Cecilia 14 years ago
Can you be an Creationist Atheist or a Religious Scientist? Is it possible or are you either one or the other?
- 251
Evolution and Atheism
by Sherlock221b 11 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious minority, including beliefs in intelligent design and other forms of...
- 129
Evolution has been rejected by the scientific community - what next?
by Horvath György 12 years ago
The theory of evolution is in an immense danger to be discarded by everyone, whether doing science or not. What is the next paradigm to solve the mystery of the origin of man?http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
- 88
Is this why there is no Point Arguing with Atheists or Religionists?
by Will Apse 9 years ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical world, according to the study." from what we understand about the...
- 40
How Does Creationism Prohibit Scientific Progress?
by Asa Schneidermann 10 years ago
How Does Creationism Prohibit Scientific Progress?"Atheists" are always claiming that Creationism or Creationists prohibit scientific progress, yet fail to give any concrete examples or reasons. Your thoughts?
- 19
Do you think Governor Scott Walker has what it takes to be the president of the
by Susie Lehto 10 years ago
Do you think Governor Scott Walker has what it takes to be the president of the United States?Gov. Walker has put presidential campaign plans into action. (photo: Scott Walker standing was taken by me)