Well? Give me some good reasons. Thanks.

I read His words and believed.

It’s really simple, you read His words and you either believe or you don't believe. If one does not believe Jesus then there is no way that any mere mortal will convince one of the truth.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I read his alleged words and didn't believe.

Katazia is a HATER and an anti-Zionist!!!!

:D

----------------

I believe because of His Father's mercy and eternal grace.

Katazia is a HATER and an anti-Zionist!!!!

:D

----------------

I believe because of His Father's mercy and eternal grace.
*************
M*W: Katazia is NOT a HATER and NOT an Anti-Zionist!!!! She knows the truth. You don't. Better yet, you are not saved! You are a lost soul. All you are is a piece of dying meat.

*************
M*W: Katazia is NOT a HATER and NOT an Anti-Zionist!!!! She knows the truth. You don't. Better yet, you are not saved! You are a lost soul. All you are is a piece of dying meat.


:)

First off, you obviously don't know how to take a joke. I was only emulating PM but then if you want to be a heathen, go right ahead.


Secondly, your flaming and put downs only prove that you are in utter denial.

Come to Jesus, MW. He has a place prepared for you.

:)

First off, you obviously don't know how to take a joke. I was only emulating PM but then if you want to be a heathen, go right ahead.

Secondly, your flaming and put downs only prove that you are in utter denial.

Come to Jesus, MW. He has a place prepared for you.
*************
M*W: I came to Jesus many years ago. I spent most of my adult life in Jesus. This is no joke! I am not in denial. Jesus is simply a character in history. I don't need to "come to Jesus," he let me down many years ago. He is not real. He doesn't exist. He is simply a character from a lost religion. You are the one who is lost. Jesus didn't die for you! Jesus didn't die for me! You need to wake-up and smell the truth!

I suppose when I pray and my prayers are answered, those are mere coincidence.. :rolleyes:

Just because you had a bad experience, does NOT mean you should make such unfair generalizations and you know it.

I suppose when I pray and my prayers are answered, those are mere coincidence.. :rolleyes:

Just because you had a bad experience, does NOT mean you should make such unfair generalizations and you know it.
*************
M*W: My "bad experience" with Christianity is not a "generalization," it was FACT! You are only hallucinating that your {"prayers were answered." Call it a "coincidence," but the fact is your "prayers were never answered!"

My prayers were specific and they have reflected on my present condition therefore I cannot be "hallucinating".

You are the one who is angry because you want to be a child of Christ so desperately.

SouthStar,

Don't get too upset with MW, she read a book once that says Jesus isn't real, therefore it's the truth, as opposed to our Book which is full of prophecies that were fulfilled which, therefore, cannot possibly be the Truth. Still with me?

Despite the fact that billions of people around the world have firsthand experiences of Jesus working in their lives, no amount of testimony will move someone who refuses to be moved.

Perhaps MW's anger is what kept her from getting close to Jesus in the first place. All we can do is pray for her and bless her as she curses us. MW, know that the more you curse Jesus, the more I will pray for you.

Have a nice day :)
Paula

Ohh, looks like this is a joke thread.

I love Jesus, but I am a necrophiliac :D

I know, I know, bad joke. Anyway, I don´t believe in Jesus and I don´t see why I should. Also, the things he supposedly said aren´t that great or interesting if you ask me.

SouthStar,

Don't get too upset with MW, she read a book once that says Jesus isn't real, therefore it's the truth, as opposed to our Book which is full of prophecies that were fulfilled which, therefore, cannot possibly be the Truth. Still with me?

Despite the fact that billions of people around the world have firsthand experiences of Jesus working in their lives, no amount of testimony will move someone who refuses to be moved.

Perhaps MW's anger is what kept her from getting close to Jesus in the first place. All we can do is pray for her and bless her as she curses us. MW, know that the more you curse Jesus, the more I will pray for you.

Have a nice day :)
Paula

Nice to meet you Paula.

What amuses me most is when you present irrefutable evidence to her, she just totally ABANDONS the entire conversation and the entire thread. Chances are she won't be returning here any more. Sometimes I don't think prayer is enough, she has the same problem Paul had before his conversion. Maybe that's the same thing she needs.. ;)

Also, the things he supposedly said aren´t that great or interesting if you ask me.

No one asked. :p

I know, but it never stops me or you from answering anyway does it?

Well? Give me some good reasons. Thanks.Because His message is genuine and it's full of "human characteristics" and understanding, the Bible is describing a human, which were afraid of dying (though He knew that it was unavoidable) and asked for another way "but do your will, not mine". That particular part, when the cried and prayed because of His sorrow for the thought of dying, is very good and shows a man not a supernatural hero.

He felt compassion with the ones that asked for His help and felt sorry for the ones that had gone the wrong way "forgive them, they don't know what they are doing", all this makes Him a very lovable person to me. And I've allways felt a need for such a person in my life, that can show me what's right and what's wrong and knows what life is all about. He is a guidance and a teacher and a great friend "cause now you aren't my servents, you are my friends".

What amuses me most is when you present irrefutable evidence to her, she just totally ABANDONS the entire conversation and the entire thread. Chances are she won't be returning here any more. Sometimes I don't think prayer is enough, she has the same problem Paul had before his conversion. Maybe that's the same thing she needs.. ;)

You're probably right about M*W's style. I don't agree with the way she 'debates', if it can even be called that.

However, you didn't present irrefutable evidence. In fact, you didn't present any evidence. You simply claimed that some of your prayers were answered. Big deal. Many Christians pray for things that never come true and accept it as God saying 'no.' What do you make of that? How come all of your prayers were answered? To an outsider, it simply seems like some people are getting lucky, and some aren't. Perhaps you're getting lucky.

Either way, that sure isn't evidence of any sort--it's just an anecdote.

Also, Paula, I can't think of one fulfilled prophecy that isn't vague or the result of post-occurance modification. Perhaps you could enlighten the skeptical.

Ah ....


The more you ignore me, the closer I get.

SouthStar,

Don't get too upset with MW, she read a book once that says Jesus isn't real, therefore it's the truth, as opposed to our Book which is full of prophecies that were fulfilled which, therefore, cannot possibly be the Truth. Still with me?

Despite the fact that billions of people around the world have firsthand experiences of Jesus working in their lives, no amount of testimony will move someone who refuses to be moved.

Perhaps MW's anger is what kept her from getting close to Jesus in the first place. All we can do is pray for her and bless her as she curses us. MW, know that the more you curse Jesus, the more I will pray for you.

Have a nice day :)
Paula
*************
M*W: Paula, save your breath. As many times as I have explained my position on Christianity, you all still say I hate Jesus! When have I ever said this? NEVER! I used to be a good Catholic and a good Christian. I believed with all my heart. At one time, I would have been the one arguing FOR Christianity. Then I learned the truth. It's not about Jesus at all! It's about Paul. It's about the evils of the Roman Catholic Church. I will say it again, Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. I know you all don't have the capacity to understand this because you have been blinded by your religious programming. Jesus didn't become a "savior" until the early church fathers made him one in 325 AD. It's all a lie! Jesus may have lived, but he didn't die for any of you! It's a lie! It's just bizarre to me that you people believe in fairy tales. There were no prophecies fulfilled in the NT. It was all taken from earlier myths and rewritten by Paul. Paul was a prolific writer, but that's about it. He wasn't an honest man at all. Let me assure you that I've read more than one book on this subject. I lived Christianity until I found out the truth. Christianity, itself, is the Antichrist. There is no salvation through Christianity. Remember, you heard it here!

Nice to meet you Paula.

What amuses me most is when you present irrefutable evidence to her, she just totally ABANDONS the entire conversation and the entire thread. Chances are she won't be returning here any more. Sometimes I don't think prayer is enough, she has the same problem Paul had before his conversion. Maybe that's the same thing she needs.. ;)
*************
M*W: "...irrefutable evidence?" Please cite your "irrefutable evidence. Maybe you could convince me. Please try!

"...ABANDONS the entire conversation and the entire thread." NEVER! You'll never get rid of me! There is no way you can re-convert me! I found the truth! You are the ones who are living a lie. I don't need your prayers, I pray myself to the kingdom of God within. I know my prayers are always heard and answered. I don't need a mythological character to pray to, and I don't need a building full of blind believers. It's too bad that you all don't pay attention and learn the truth. Christianity is declining worldwide. Lies won't last forever.

Because of God's AWSOME love.

*************
M*W: Paula, save your breath. As many times as I have explained my position on Christianity, you all still say I hate Jesus! When have I ever said this? NEVER! I used to be a good Catholic and a good Christian. I believed with all my heart. At one time, I would have been the one arguing FOR Christianity. Then I learned the truth. It's not about Jesus at all! It's about Paul. It's about the evils of the Roman Catholic Church. I will say it again, Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. I know you all don't have the capacity to understand this because you have been blinded by your religious programming. Jesus didn't become a "savior" until the early church fathers made him one in 325 AD. It's all a lie! Jesus may have lived, but he didn't die for any of you! It's a lie! It's just bizarre to me that you people believe in fairy tales. There were no prophecies fulfilled in the NT. It was all taken from earlier myths and rewritten by Paul. Paul was a prolific writer, but that's about it. He wasn't an honest man at all. Let me assure you that I've read more than one book on this subject. I lived Christianity until I found out the truth. Christianity, itself, is the Antichrist. There is no salvation through Christianity. Remember, you heard it here!It's all about believing.

I don't know what made you take such a bitter tone, I'm sure you are a nice person.

I know you all don't have the capacity to understand this because you have been blinded by your religious programming. Jesus didn't become a "savior" until the early church fathers made him one in 325 AD. It's all a lie! Jesus may have lived, but he didn't die for any of you! It's a lie! It's just bizarre to me that you people believe in fairy tales.

How would she know? This, of course, is the same pathetic Medicine*Woman who, like so many week minded New Agers, could do no more than substitute the religious programming of the idiotic for the religious programming of the backward. She proudly proclaims Patrick H. Bellringer as her authority on Paul and freely quotes line after line of unsubstantiated drivil from his "PEOPLE OF THE LIE: SAUL OF TARSUS: PAUL", but she fails to inform us that her Bellringer also wrote:5. Aliens Among Us!

Many UFO sightings are presently being reported around the world. Such sightings shall only increase. ... Contrary to U.S. government prattle, these starships are our secret allies of the Forces of Light, who are here to help us establish peace in our world at this time. Expect to see real aliens, ascended Masters and other Light Beings on your T.V. soon! And God said, “There shall be peace on earth and good-will toward men”---now! Aho!

- see http://www.fourwinds10.com/phb/update-11-13-02.html#5One wonders whether Medicine*Woman, this exposer of the bizarre, this enemy of the fairy-tale, is likewise 'expect[ing] to see real aliens, ascended Masters and other Light Beings on [her] T.V. soon!'

Few demonstrate being blinded by programming so well as this sad yet pretentious new age nun of nonsense.

NEVER! You'll never get rid of me! There is no way you can re-convert me! I found the truth! You are the ones who are living a lie.
And so it goes, from one baseless revelation to the next, each increasingly inane, each leaving its heroine increasingly vapid and vitriolic. It really is rather sad.

How would she know? This, of course, is the same pathetic Medicine*Woman who, like so many week minded New Agers, could do no more than substitute the religious programming of the idiotic for the religious programming of the backward. She proudly proclaims Patrick H. Bellringer as her authority on Paul and freely quotes line after line of unsubstantiated drivil from his "PEOPLE OF THE LIE: SAUL OF TARSUS: PAUL", but she fails to inform us that her Bellringer also wrote:5. Aliens Among Us![QUOTE]
*************
M*W: First off, you can improve your spelling. Secondly, I indicated previously that I had not actually read most of those books on the list, including this one. I have never read anything by Bellringer, so you're totally out in left field, as usual.
*************
Many UFO sightings are presently being reported around the world. Such sightings shall only increase. ... Contrary to U.S. government prattle, these starships are our secret allies of the Forces of Light, who are here to help us establish peace in our world at this time. Expect to see real aliens, ascended Masters and other Light Beings on your T.V. soon! And God said, “There shall be peace on earth and good-will toward men”---now! Aho!

- see http://www.fourwinds10.com/phb/update-11-13-02.html#5One wonders whether Medicine*Woman, this exposer of the bizarre, this enemy of the fairy-tale, is likewise 'expect[ing] to see real aliens, ascended Masters and other Light Beings on [her] T.V. soon!'
*************
M*W: I watch neither TV nor movies. I read... and write.
*************
Few demonstrate being blinded by programming so well as this sad yet pretentious new age nun of nonsense.
*************
M*W: If there's any 'programming' going on with me, it's what I've learned myself unlike you who believes everything she reads in BAR. Nothing is proven.
*************
And so it goes, from one baseless revelation to the next, each increasingly inane, each leaving its heroine increasingly vapid and vitriolic. It really is rather sad.
*************
M*W: Sad! Hah! You CONTINUE to read what I write, even though you discount everything I say! So be it! You're the laughing stock of the forum! If it bothers you as much as you claim, why do you continue to read my posts? You've made it quite obvious that my posts are entertaining to say the very least! You should get back to your TV. It's bubble gum on the brain.

Be a good girl and learn the proper use of the quoting mechanism. Your posts are beginning to take on an excessively neurotic look - it's almost self referential. Did you skip your meds again?

We know Nero persecuted Christians, correct? And we know that these persecutions were awful and horrible, correct? My question is, why would the apostles be subjected to indescribable torture if they knew that the entire thing was just a big hoax?

Because they had faith? There are people who gladly experience pain for their religion (not only christians). Others blow themself up for their beliefs. No matter if it is true or not, if you have faith, it is possible to endure.

Yes, of course they had faith. But take this example. just a few months after Jesus's acsention, the apostles, who had walked with Jesus, began preaching in Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders were not happy about it, and they did all sorts of nasty things to the apostles. The Jewish leaders KNEW Jesus had existed, because they had planned to have him killed! Obviously, the apostles would have ended up in something more like the 1 AD version of a straight-jacket than prison if they were claiming that Jesus had existed when he hadn't.
Further more, Although people today are blowing themselves up for their religion, they are simply taking someone else's word that their god existed. The apostles walked with Jesus first hand. They would not endure torture for someone that they knew was not true. Why would they make him up, I ask? They certainly didn't benefit from their religion, because they preached giving to the poor ect.

I believe in Jesus because of internal evidence, the worth of some of the sayings and parables that are attributed to him. However, I don't believe the dogma of the Christian church, which I think has distorted his teaching from the very beginning. Some of those distortions include his exclusive divinity, and probably a few of the miracles.

Yes, of course they had faith. But take this example. just a few months after Jesus's acsention, the apostles, who had walked with Jesus, began preaching in Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders were not happy about it, and they did all sorts of nasty things to the apostles. The Jewish leaders KNEW Jesus had existed, because they had planned to have him killed! Obviously, the apostles would have ended up in something more like the 1 AD version of a straight-jacket than prison if they were claiming that Jesus had existed when he hadn't.
Further more, Although people today are blowing themselves up for their religion, they are simply taking someone else's word that their god existed. The apostles walked with Jesus first hand. They would not endure torture for someone that they knew was not true. Why would they make him up, I ask? They certainly didn't benefit from their religion, because they preached giving to the poor ect.

There are always people who are willing to sacrifice their lifes for friends or idols. It is still faith, those who followed Jesus had faith that he was the son of god. But was there evidence? Persumably not. But Jesus was nontheless a friend and idol for them. Hence they did not stray from their faith in him even if they were tortured. Those guys took his word that god existed.
Jesus might´ve just been the leader of a sect.
And I never said that Jesus did not exist.

You're probably right about M*W's style. I don't agree with the way she 'debates', if it can even be called that.

However, you didn't present irrefutable evidence. In fact, you didn't present any evidence. You simply claimed that some of your prayers were answered. Big deal. Many Christians pray for things that never come true and accept it as God saying 'no.' What do you make of that? How come all of your prayers were answered? To an outsider, it simply seems like some people are getting lucky, and some aren't. Perhaps you're getting lucky.

Either way, that sure isn't evidence of any sort--it's just an anecdote.

Also, Paula, I can't think of one fulfilled prophecy that isn't vague or the result of post-occurance modification. Perhaps you could enlighten the skeptical.

I was referring to another thread where I hand typed (not copy-n-paste) a whole page of information concerning the reliability of the New Testament.

Not only did she fail to even acknowledge my reply to her question, she totally abandoned the thread altogether. This irritates me because it's not even the first time she has fled when someone refutes her inane ideology. :mad:

*************
M*W: Sad! Hah! You CONTINUE to read what I write, even though you discount everything I say! So be it! You're the laughing stock of the forum! If it bothers you as much as you claim, why do you continue to read my posts? You've made it quite obvious that my posts are entertaining to say the very least! You should get back to your TV. It's bubble gum on the brain.


You continue to remind me of Proud Muslim. Why don't you start using colorful text and giant font to prove your ignorance?

- Both you and PM have the same writing style, same ludicrous "sources", same habit of fleeing every conversation that proves too difficult, same obnoxious arrogance.

There are always people who are willing to sacrifice their lifes for friends or idols. It is still faith, those who followed Jesus had faith that he was the son of god. But was there evidence? Persumably not. But Jesus was nontheless a friend and idol for them. Hence they did not stray from their faith in him even if they were tortured. Those guys took his word that god existed.
Jesus might´ve just been the leader of a sect.
And I never said that Jesus did not exist.


---------------
Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e., was false) the disciples knew it. I find no way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie, knowing it was a lie.

Unless you can prove your theory that somehow ALL eleven disciples were fooled...

I can trust the apostle's testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyr's deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their believed in Him as God.

Again, how can ALL ELEVEN disciples be decieved concerning these things which would definitely have been very obvious.

Peter-crucified
Andrew-crucified
Matthew-the sword
John-natural
James, son of Alphaeus-crucified
Philip-crucified
Simon-crucified
Thaddaeus-killed by arrows
James, brother of Jesus-stoned
Thomas-spear thrust
Bartholomew-crucified
James, son of Zebedee-the sword

ALL the apostles themselves had to be convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. At first they hadn't believed. They went and hid (Mark 14:50). They didn't hesitate to express their doubts. There was Thomas, who said he wouldn't believe that Christ was raised from the dead until he had put his finger in the nail prints. Thomas later died a martyr's death for Christ (see above list). Whas he deceived? He bet his life he wasn't.
--------------------

Information from McDowell's 'More than a Carpenter'

*************
M*W: "...irrefutable evidence?" Please cite your "irrefutable evidence. Maybe you could convince me. Please try!

"...ABANDONS the entire conversation and the entire thread." NEVER! You'll never get rid of me! There is no way you can re-convert me! I found the truth! You are the ones who are living a lie. I don't need your prayers, I pray myself to the kingdom of God within. I know my prayers are always heard and answered. I don't need a mythological character to pray to, and I don't need a building full of blind believers. It's too bad that you all don't pay attention and learn the truth. Christianity is declining worldwide. Lies won't last forever.

Need I comment about the mental health of Medicine Woman?

Perhaps they thought up the resurrection? There is no historic proof for it.
You know that faith can make you blind? Perhaps they died for a friend in whom they believed and trusted and whom they wanted to engrandize, making him immortal in the minds of mankind. And because of that they themself lied and died for a lie and for their friend/idol.

Perhaps they thought up the resurrection? There is no historic proof for it.
You know that faith can make you blind? Perhaps they died for a friend in whom they believed and trusted and whom they wanted to engrandize, making him immortal in the minds of mankind. And because of that they themself lied and died for a lie and for their friend/idol.

:rolleyes:

Ok then. After seeing the list (here it is again):

Peter-crucified
Andrew-crucified
Matthew-the sword
John-natural
James, son of Alphaeus-crucified
Philip-crucified
Simon-crucified
Thaddaeus-killed by arrows
James, brother of Jesus-stoned
Thomas-spear thrust
Bartholomew-crucified
James, son of Zebedee-the sword

You still think they "thought up" the resurrection?

ALL ELEVEN OF THEM thought up the resurrection and died for it?

erhaps they died for a friend in whom they believed and trusted and whom they wanted to engrandize, making him immortal in the minds of mankind. And because of that they themself lied and died for a lie and for their friend/idol.

Hopefully, not even you thinks that is at all plausible. :bugeye:

People have died for all kinds of stupid things. And many people died for their dreams. Others died for nothing at all.

Keep on copying your list, I don´t care, there are myriads of people who died for something, no matter if it existed in reality or only in their head. And plausible? Plausibility is hampered by subjective views, just like objectivity.

Of all the apostles, only Thomas knew for sure about Jesus' resurrection, since he was the only one who claimed to have touched him. Of the rest, there is something between a lie and the truth. Many people can see the same event and they will have all seen something different. There is the phenomenon of mass hysteria. Also, when people are very stressed out, like when your teacher who you have given up your whole life to follow is suddenly killed, they may hallucinate. Even in normal circumstances, our senses can not be trusted entirely. They could have all just assumed that Jesus died and was resurrected when in fact he may not have died in the first place, his twin could have been crucified in his place, or Jesus was crucified, but did not die. This is just hypothetical, but an example of how a story can be true, but still not be the whole truth.

Thousands have died for a lie, knowing it was a lie. How about Vietnam? I think few soldiers over there really believed they were saving the civilized world from the dangers of communism. The disciples could have promoted the myth of Christ's resurrection because they knew it would bring many converts to a cause they believed was noble.

If Jesus was resurrected, why did he not go on to live a long life? The myth of him being resurrected and then GOING TO HEAVEN (dying) ANYWAY, is the most unbelievable part, and I think discredits the whole story.

Historian2be,

They would not endure torture for someone that they knew was not true. Why would they make him up, I ask? They certainly didn't benefit from their religion, because they preached giving to the poor ect.Just like the Islamic suicide bombers if you are convinced there is an afterlife and that true rewards and paradise are waiting for you when you die then torture and dying are merely minor inconveniences on the way to eternal bliss.

The irrationality of blind absolute faith will drive people to do anything whether true or not. This is the evil that is religion.

Kat

I remember something like this from the bible: "you have seen so you believe, but blessed are those who have not seen but believe..."

People have died for all kinds of stupid things. And many people died for their dreams. Others died for nothing at all.

Keep on copying your list, I don´t care, there are myriads of people who died for something, no matter if it existed in reality or only in their head. And plausible? Plausibility is hampered by subjective views, just like objectivity.

Why don't you give examples of such people to backup your claim? :rolleyes:

SouthStar,

You still think they "thought up" the resurrection?

ALL ELEVEN OF THEM thought up the resurrection and died for it?

People have been killing themselves or letting themselves be killed for their irrational religious beliefs for millennia. Christianity is no special case.

900 die in Jonestown for their religious beliefs.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jonestwn.html#profile

53 die for the Order of the Solar Temple.
http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.culteducation.com/solartemp.html

How about David Koresh and his Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas where 86 died for their religious beliefs.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.massacre.html#I.1

Kat

Spidergoat,
The reason that Christ did not continue to live a long life after he was resurrected was that his mission was fufilled! He had come to earth, become a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins, and been resurected. There was really no reason for him to hang around much longer. Probably the only reason why he continued on earth for 40 days was so that 500 eyewittnesses could testify to his coming back to life

Katazia,
You gave an example of Muslims, who endure torture, ect, because they are (Allegedly) on their way to eternal bliss. This is certainly one good reason to become a martyr. However, the Apostles, if they knew the entire "Jesus is the Messiah" thing was a hoax, would NOT think that they were on their way to eternal bliss, because Jesus would not have been God, and therefore could not reward them! I know I am probably making enemies really fast here on the forum, and it's only my first day. Let me just say, I am sure you guys and gals are all really great as people. I just don't agree with some of your ideas.
-Historian2be

PS I had no idea debating like this could be so addictive

Katazia,
You gave an example of Muslims, who endure torture, ect, because they are (Allegedly) on their way to eternal bliss. This is certainly one good reason to become a martyr. However, the Apostles, if they knew the entire "Jesus is the Messiah" thing was a hoax, would NOT think that they were on their way to eternal bliss, because Jesus would not have been God, and therefore could not reward them! I know I am probably making enemies really fast here on the forum, and it's only my first day. Let me just say, I am sure you guys and gals are all really great as people. I just don't agree with some of your ideas.
-Historian2be

PS I had no idea debating like this could be so addictive

And you only have seven posts? :rolleyes:

:D

@ Kat

The Branch Davidians followed a self-proclaimed prophet. What evidence was there of this and even if there is can you possibly compare it to the evidence needed to convince eleven cowering people that a savior has risen?

Besides, they thought the Holy Spirit was female. Need I say more?

---------

As for the Jim Jones tragedy, the article doesn't state why they did it so you'll have to explain your point to me.

---------

The Order of the Solar temple article also doesn't tell as much so I can't relate this either to the apostles.

Remeber, the apostles underwent a transformation, the nature and power of which we are discussing. Before I am accused of jumping to conclusions, tell me how this relates to the mentioned transformation.

:)

Remeber, the apostles underwent a transformation, the nature and power of which we are discussing.
It is near inconceivable to me that you cannot see what an inane comment that is.

MW you definitely have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Why where you attracted to the catholic church??? because you wanted to be a GOOD CATHOLIC a GOOD CHRISTIAN???

The Words Of Jesus:

Mark 10:18
So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

i'm not surprised your faith crumbled. Because it was founded on a false desire ot obtain perfection in this life. Another thing the catholic religion is not Christian so you never where are Christian. But you now call Jesus death and resurrection a lie and they are the words of an anti-christ.

All Praise They Ancient Of Days

Computers run on electricity. You can not see the electrons traveling through the circits, but you know that it is happening. Why? Because you can see the effects of it. it brings the computer to life. With out electricity, the computer is useless, it cannot function as it was made to do with out the electricity. God is our electricity. ConsequentAtheist, you have no electricity running through you. that is why Southstar's statement is near inconceivable to you. A person can only describe what they know. You cannot understand what electricity is if you have never felt the current running through your circit.

grace be to you

Adstar, I believe that you may be speaking too harshly to Medicine Woman. She was attracted to the Catholic church because people she respected were members. She wanted to belong, so she joined and did all that she felt was required of her. Then she realized that something wasn't right. there was something wrong, she just wasn't sure what. As she seached deeper into the matter, she came to the conclution that the church had lied to her. Nothing this church told her was true. It became her new mission to prevent others from making the mistake she made. She went searching for truth, and this is were she ended up. she may be right, she may be wrong that is her choice. Do not speak harshly to her for questioning what she believes. She does a better job spreading her opinion than many christians. Sorry MW if I didn't paint an accurate picture. Please correct me if need be.

grace be to you

The Branch Davidians followed a self-proclaimed prophet. What evidence was there of this and even if there is can you possibly compare it to the evidence needed to convince eleven cowering people that a savior has risen?

Uh, I think that's exactly the whole point. If followers are able to die to a self-proclaimed prophet such as David Koresh, why could not the apostles be killed in the name of Jesus as well? Both are (supposedly) fake people with a following that died for their beliefs.

And I still find it funny that people resort to the Bible when trying to bring up proof such as:

. Probably the only reason why he continued on earth for 40 days was so that 500 *eyewittnesses* could testify to his coming back to life

LoL, and where exactly is the proof of those eyewitnesses? Dang, no testemonies to read or hear? You see, when there is NO proof, ANYTHING can be said. Heck, if it were written in the Bible that the WHOLE WORLD saw Jesus and/or God, that is still no proof if nobody else other than the Bible ever mentions it. It's just too bad people still don't realize that history is written by victors. And since it is, anything can be said and believed as proof when there is none.

I remember something like this from the bible: "you have seen so you believe, but blessed are those who have not seen but believe..."

I'm sure salesmen -- as does Jesus -- looooooove you and others that gullible. Hey, I gotta bridge to sell ya. I mean heck, you don't gotta see it, just believe me bro. $200,000 -- as well as your life in Jesus' case -- is not much of a loss.

I have no problem with those that read and follow the Bible because of a few good things said that'll help one be a bit nicer to others, but damn, those with blind faith and take the Bible as historical fact are just insane. Follow and repeat the good deeds done in the Bible but geez, be a bit more logical with the rest. Only a fool has blind faith.

- N

I have no problem with those that read and follow the Bible because of a few good things said that'll help one be a bit nicer to others, but damn, those with blind faith and take the Bible as historical fact are just insane. Follow and repeat the good deeds done in the Bible but geez, be a bit more logical with the rest. Only a fool has blind faith.

Damnation will come to those that do not repent. You want to know something funny? I have trouble with over-analyzing stuff, too analytical for my own good. But you know what, I belive in God and I believe in the Bible as being absolute truth. Blind faith is when you believe something just because someone else spoke it. The faith I have is not blind. Everywhere I look, I see God's handi-work.

Spidergoat,
The reason that Christ did not continue to live a long life after he was resurrected was that his mission was fufilled! He had come to earth, become a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins, and been resurected. There was really no reason for him to hang around much longer. Probably the only reason why he continued on earth for 40 days was so that 500 eyewittnesses could testify to his coming back to life
40 days, that sounds like death row. No , I think the resurrection symbolized something. It was that physical existence, having a mortal body, is something significant. It wasn't only because He wanted to make a point about sin. Our material nature has always been seen with some suspicion, as only a sort of proving ground for souls, on the way to Someplace Else, but in this case, it is shown to be a goal in itself.

Adstar, I believe that you may be speaking too harshly to Medicine Woman. She was attracted to the Catholic church because people she respected were members. She wanted to belong, so she joined and did all that she felt was required of her. Then she realized that something wasn't right. there was something wrong, she just wasn't sure what. As she seached deeper into the matter, she came to the conclution that the church had lied to her. Nothing this church told her was true. It became her new mission to prevent others from making the mistake she made. She went searching for truth, and this is were she ended up. she may be right, she may be wrong that is her choice. Do not speak harshly to her for questioning what she believes. She does a better job spreading her opinion than many christians. Sorry MW if I didn't paint an accurate picture. Please correct me if need be.

grace be to you

RIDICULOUS!

There is no such thing as speaking harshly against MW and as a Christian you should know that.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I have taken the time to read through and even consider her "arguments" and therefore I know what I am talking about. :p

Uh, I think that's exactly the whole point. If followers are able to die to a self-proclaimed prophet such as David Koresh, why could not the apostles be killed in the name of Jesus as well? Both are (supposedly) fake people with a following that died for their beliefs.

- N

First off, here is what I wrote since you have ignored it:

---------------
Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e., was false) the disciples knew it. I find no way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie, knowing it was a lie.

Unless you can prove your theory that somehow ALL eleven disciples were fooled...

I can trust the apostle's testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyr's deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their believed in Him as God.

Again, how can ALL ELEVEN disciples be decieved concerning these things which would definitely have been very obvious.

Peter-crucified
Andrew-crucified
Matthew-the sword
John-natural
James, son of Alphaeus-crucified
Philip-crucified
Simon-crucified
Thaddaeus-killed by arrows
James, brother of Jesus-stoned
Thomas-spear thrust
Bartholomew-crucified
James, son of Zebedee-the sword

ALL the apostles themselves had to be convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. At first they hadn't believed. They went and hid (Mark 14:50). They didn't hesitate to express their doubts. There was Thomas, who said he wouldn't believe that Christ was raised from the dead until he had put his finger in the nail prints. Thomas later died a martyr's death for Christ (see above list). Whas he deceived? He bet his life he wasn't.
--------------------

Information from McDowell's 'More than a Carpenter'


Now, as I was saying smartypants, how does that tragedy relate to the apostles' radical TRANSFORMATION and the evidence that led to it.

Proof of a resurrected savior. It is quite difficult to be "illusioned" about something like that even though I see people saying they could have been hallucinating. :rolleyes: Yeah right.

What is your evidence of a resurrection?

Besides, they thought the Holy Spirit was female. Need I say more?

I have no idea why Branch Davidians thought so, but can you tell why do you not think so.?

The Father - ________ - The Son : That makes some sense, man.

Adstar, I believe that you may be speaking too harshly to Medicine Woman. She was attracted to the Catholic church because people she respected were members. She wanted to belong, so she joined and did all that she felt was required of her. Then she realized that something wasn't right. there was something wrong, she just wasn't sure what. As she seached deeper into the matter, she came to the conclution that the church had lied to her. Nothing this church told her was true. It became her new mission to prevent others from making the mistake she made. She went searching for truth, and this is were she ended up. she may be right, she may be wrong that is her choice. Do not speak harshly to her for questioning what she believes. She does a better job spreading her opinion than many christians. Sorry MW if I didn't paint an accurate picture. Please correct me if need be.

grace be to you

Respect humans?

Why would one respect something not perfect?

Psalm 40:4
Blessed is that man who makes the LORD his trust, And does not respect the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

"She went searching for truth, and this is were she ended up."

After leaving the catholic chruch did she go searching for truth or did she go searching for vengeance against anything called Christian?

"Do not speak harshly to her for questioning what she believes."

Don't you see she has gone bejond that? she not only does not believe she is now activly attacking the Gospel. If she was attacking the catholic dogma or protestant dogma or any other falseness against the Word of God then that would be wonderful, But she is attacking the core faith of the Messiah Jesus. I was once a catholic myself and i thank God i got out that harlot of constantine.

I do not have any ill feelings toward MW i hope one day she will get over her anger at what happened in her life. i may sound harsh but i am being direct.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

New evidence surrounding the death of Joseph Smith suggests
that he was not killed by the jailhouse mob as is normally believed. The
evidence now shows that he died from having an unusually large amount of semen
pumped into his anus by dozens of black men. He having so much semen pumped into
his anus eventually got what doctors call semenotosis or " semen on the brain"
in fact autopsy results have shown that his stool contained almost 75% semen.
I hope this clears things up a bit.

Abnoxio,
In case you haven't noticed, this has ABOSLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Spidergoat,
I don't understand your "40 days death row" post. Could you please explain?

SouthStar,
Yes, I am definetly hooked.

Everyone,
I thought I saw someone say that the disciples could have been illusioned. This doesn't make sense, as it would be very hard for all of them to be hallucinating the same thing at the same time.

So §outh§tar, with Jesus being arrested, denied freedom by the people who chose a robber, and these being the fates of the others who preached the same message;

Peter-crucified
Andrew-crucified
Matthew-the sword
John-natural
James, son of Alphaeus-crucified
Philip-crucified
Simon-crucified
Thaddaeus-killed by arrows
James, brother of Jesus-stoned
Thomas-spear thrust
Bartholomew-crucified
James, son of Zebedee-the sword

Do you not ever entertain the idea that as the bible was written some thirty years after Jesus' death, it was rather revisionist, and portrayed Jesus and followers in a far better light than he was percieved at the time? People who actually met him weren't convinced by him, so why is he credible 2000 years later, as described by a contradictory and flawed Bible?

I mean, well liked people do not suffer such deaths, do they?

Spidergoat,
I don't understand your "40 days death row" post. Could you please explain?

This is a reference to the idea that Jesus was brought back from the dead only for 40 days, why? Why give him life only to take it away again? This implies that God not only gave him life, but killed him, AGAIN!

according to the bible he wasnt givin life to live it but to save ours and thats about it.

"wasn't given life to live it"

that seems pretty cruel

This is a reference to the idea that Jesus was brought back from the dead only for 40 days, why? Why give him life only to take it away again? This implies that God not only gave him life, but killed him, AGAIN!

Jesus died once and that was one the cross. He was then raised on the third day. He then spent time with disciples, but never did he die. He was taken up to heaven, just as Elija was. When He rose, He conquered death. It now has no meaning. God could not kill Jesus again if he never killed him once. the Roman soldiers cruxified Him, and he CHOSE to stay on the cross and die.

grace be to you

E. has a point. God didnt kill him. He knew what he had to do and it was his choice no one elses.

well i belive in jesus because something amazeing had to happen to start a new religion(christiantity) and for that religion too take over most of the world .As for some of the laws of god i am not shore cause that's when stuff gets cloudy.I also think when it comes to prayers they go to god

anyone out there belive in angels? If so explain.

I have no idea why Branch Davidians thought so, but can you tell why do you not think so.?

The Father - ________ - The Son : That makes some sense, man.

God is a spirit.

A spirit is not male.

Therefore God is not male.

You know, on a church in my hometown, someone once spraypainted: God is a black woman.

The church refrained from removing it...

What is your evidence of a resurrection?

I will go through this one by one since it is tedious to type it all out and you probably won't even read it:

JESUS' BURIAL

The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial customs, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body.

After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone (weighing approximately two tons) was rolled by means of levers against the entrance of the tomb.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined men was stationed to guard the tomb. Fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches." This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, a stamp of Roman power and authority. The seal was meant to prevent vandalizing. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But the tomb was empty.
-----------------------------------

Information from McDowell's, 'More Than a Carpenter'.


Yes, a lot of people have died for a good cause, but the good cause of the apostles died on the cross. Only the resurrection and resultant contact with Christ convinced his followers he was the Messiah. To this they testified not only with their lips and lives, but with their deaths.

Historian2be,

… the Apostles, if they knew the entire "Jesus is the Messiah" thing was a hoax, would NOT think that they were on their way to eternal bliss, because Jesus would not have been God, and therefore could not reward them! I do not believe anyone is saying that the Apostles knew that the resurrection was a hoax since that would be inconsistent with Christian mythology. But you are on very weak ground trying to use probably mythological characters to prove an issue about another mythological character. We really don’t know much about the apostles, even whether they actually existed, and not much about their deaths. Likewise we have no historical evidence of a Jesus either. The arguments here become largely hypothetical.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html

I know I am probably making enemies really fast here on the forum, and it's only my first day. Let me just say, I am sure you guys and gals are all really great as people. I just don't agree with some of your ideas.Being in disagreement with an argument is not the same as making enemies. Don’t worry about it.

Kat

E. has a point. God didnt kill him. He knew what he had to do and it was his choice no one elses.

How was it his choice? He got taken prisoner by the romans and killed through the choices of others. He had absolutely no say in the matter - and we can even see him pleading with god at the final moments trying to have his life saved. He didn't choose anything.

SouthStar,

.. the good cause of the apostles died on the cross. Only the resurrection and resultant contact with Christ convinced his followers he was the Messiah. To this they testified not only with their lips and lives, but with their deaths. That is of course the popular myth but there is no historical evidence for any of that.

So back to the thread topic - why do you believe this? Because of Christian indoctrination, right? You are just repeating what you have been told and have never done any serious independent research into the historicity or validity of any Christian assertions, right?

Food for thought.
Kat

Snakelord,

How was it his choice? He got taken prisoner by the romans and killed through the choices of others. He had absolutely no say in the matter - and we can even see him pleading with god at the final moments trying to have his life saved. He didn't choose anything.Yes but he allowed it to happen, he didn’t resist, he had the power to do miracles remember so could have easily escaped had he so wished.

But Christian mythology has Jesus Sacrificing himself, God didn’t kill him.

Kat

SouthStar,

That is of course the popular myth but there is no historical evidence for any of that.

So back to the thread topic - why do you believe this? Because of Christian indoctrination, right? You are just repeating what you have been told and have never done any serious independent research into the historicity or validity of any Christian assertions, right?

Food for thought.
Kat

I just presented one of the reasons the disciples could not have been "decieved", as some members maliciously posit, about the resurrection. :confused:

Knowing fully well that 1 out of 20 people would be interested in reading the whole thing, I only posted one of the reasons. :p

Adstar,

Respect humans?

Why would one respect something not perfect?

So you love humans -- but you don't respect them?

I believe in Jesus because nobody else has ever made better sense to me than he did.

interesting reason! care to elaberate on it?

JESUS' BURIAL...
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined men was stationed to guard the tomb. Fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches." This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, a stamp of Roman power and authority. The seal was meant to prevent vandalizing. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But the tomb was empty.

No way the Romans would have stationed guards at the tomb of someone crucified as a common criminal, never mind the "Roman seal" on the entrance. They just didn't care that much.

I agree with GuessWho. I don't meant to turn this into a creation vs big bang thread, but I look outside at the world that surrounds me and I think: this is no accident, it was created and was created with a purpose. That's my thoughts. GuessWho may hay differant reasons.

grace be to you

No way the Romans would have stationed guards at the tomb of someone crucified as a common criminal, never mind the "Roman seal" on the entrance. They just didn't care that much.

Do you seriously believe that?

Do you know the sort of religious upheaval that came about "because" of Jesus? Do you remember that it was the Jews who persuaded that Jesus be killed and do you also forget that they feared stealing His body would propagate more of what they considered to be "heresy"?

Jesus, even in that time, was not a "common" person. His teachings caused much controversy, which the Jewish leaders did not appreciate.

(John 18:31 NIV) Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

If he was a "common prisoner" as you claim, certainly there would have been no pressure on the side of the Jews to release Barabbas instead.

Second point:
-------------
A perennially interesting, though probably unanswerable, question is how Jesus regarded himself. Did he see himself as the Messiah? Probably, although one must remember that in the first centuries of the Common Era the word "Messiah" had a different meaning than it has today. Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual figure. Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e., Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva, made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness. Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word "Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as dangerous and decided to crucify him. That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime, KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and political direction of his activities.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html
----------------------

Can you possibly say that they would leave such a Person unguarded when He obviously had followers who might try to steal Him away to "cause trouble"?

Enigma, thats the built in observer bias of any life form. They arose only in areas suited for them to arise, and adapted to the environment as it changed, so every life form finds itself in appropriate surroundings, never mind the 99.999999...% of the universe that is not suitable for habitation. Even on earth, 99% of the species that ever were are now extinct, so much for their purpose. It is also disingenuous to imply that the alternative to creationism is accident. Life was anything but an accident, but that doesn't mean that it had the intentionality of a pre-existing mind. Life may just be an emergent property of matter like crystals. In fact, it is wrong to say that we, being living, are the exception. Rocks, too, have the property of life, they cycle through living forms, and living forms cycle through a rock stage.

Do you seriously believe that?

Do you know the sort of religious upheaval that came about "because" of Jesus? Do you remember that it was the Jews who persuaded that Jesus be killed and do you also forget that they feared stealing His body would propagate more of what they considered to be "heresy"?

Jesus, even in that time, was not a "common" person. His teachings caused much controversy, which the Jewish leaders did not appreciate.

(John 18:31 NIV) Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

If he was a "common prisoner" as you claim, certainly there would have been no pressure on the side of the Jews to release Barabbas instead.

I tend to believe that, yes. I think the adversarial tone of the whole story is exaggerated. Also, the role of Pilate asking the jews anything is uncharacteristic of Roman rule at the time. Jesus would have been executed as a rebel as a matter of course. Most Jews sided with Jesus as well, they sympathized with him, in spite of his teaching an unorthodox form of Judaism. The story about them pursuading Pilate is laughable, the product of later Christian antagonism towards Jews which did not accept them as equals.

I tend to believe that, yes. I think the adversarial tone of the whole story is exaggerated. Also, the role of Pilate asking the jews anything is uncharacteristic of Roman rule at the time. Jesus would have been executed as a rebel as a matter of course. Most Jews sided with Jesus as well, they sympathized with him, in spite of his teaching an unorthodox form of Judaism. The story about them pursuading Pilate is laughable, the product of later Christian antagonism towards Jews which did not accept them as equals.

And of course the Roman efforts to dissuade rebellions through the Sanhedrin are laughable because the Romans had military strength. :rolleyes:

--------
Pilate was no friend of the Jews - "mutual contempt" could be an apt summary of their relationship. He apparently avoided visits to Jerusalem as much as possible. Pilate was a highly political man, and the Jews there seemed to know how their threatened complaints to Pilate's superiors in Rome could get the governor to act in their favor - the release of a convicted murderer in place of Jesus Christ is a glaring example.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/pilate.htm
---------

Yes but he allowed it to happen, he didn’t resist

That is always the case. It is a very rare occurence to see a prisoner fighting back. I don't know if you saw the Nick Berg video, but it's a prime example.

We all sit here and say; "If that was me I'd go out kicking and screaming", but it rarely ever ends up that way.

he had the power to do miracles remember

Like what? Teleportation from one place to another? We have but a few examples to work by, and most were simply cases of healing - which is supposedly performed by many modern day individuals. I've seen them all touring the country claiming to heal the sick and injured - and those sick and injured people even testifying to it afterwards. That does not mean these people can vanish into thin air if arrested. Ok, jesus also supposedly walked on water and several other larger scale tricks, but those cannot compare with David Copperfield who walked through the great wall of china. Either way, there is nothing whatsoever to support any claim that he could in any way have escaped.

Jesus could have called down a cohert of angels from heaven. He could have killed all the Roman soldiers. He could have done many things, and yet, He didn't. He allowed it to happen. Amazing!

Jesus could have called down a cohert of angels from heaven. He could have killed all the Roman soldiers. He could have done many things, and yet, He didn't.

Where does it say he could have done any of that?

He allowed it to happen. Amazing!

You have no position to make that claim, and we even see him begging for his life at the final moments. Instead you add these assumed magical powers to him, as if he were Spiderman, and then try to state he didn't want to use them - when you have no position to say he even had them in the first place.

Matthew 26:53
"Or do you think that I cannot apeal to My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

twelve legions is the equivalent of 72,000 angels.

So you concur with me, he couldn't have actually done any of it. He would have had to beg his father to do it for him, in essence showing that he was personally powerless. And even when he did beg, (like begging for his life), he was denied, or in his words: forsaken.

Remember, none of it was his choice, it was the choice of his father. He had no say in the matter at all.

What this equates to is that he didn't sacrifice anything - but god chose for him to be killed, he didn't want to die, but god chose to ignore his pleas, and made the choice that he would die. Luckily it's of no consequence because he was up and walking around 3 days later. god was just "pulling his leg". Amusing fellow.

It was NOT the Father's choice, but the Father's will, two seperate things. Jesus died an agonizing death. He was hung on a cross and left to die. When you are crucified, you die of suffocation. each time you take a breath you body pushes up on whatever in underneath you. because you had nails through your feet, it was an extreamly painful task just to keep breathing. people could hang on these crosses for several days. If the soldiers had mercy on you, they would break your legs. this would prevent you from being able to stand and thus breathe. Do you realize how many prophecies were fufilled in the death and ressurection of Christ? Hundreds!

Do you know the sort of religious upheaval that came about "because" of Jesus?
No, and neither do you. All you know is a series of wholly unsubstantiated, late 1st century, second hand stories fabricated by apologists.

That you believe them reflects little more than infantile gullibility. But that you would actually suggest some great "religious upheavel" is laughably stupid, for the greater the supposed upheaval the more curious the total absence of an extra-biblical record.

It was NOT the Father's choice, but the Father's will, two seperate things

Explain the difference.

Jesus died an agonizing death

So do many people all over the world, every single day of the week. Is that also god's will, or just nature? I'm curious to know.

When you are crucified, you die of suffocation. each time you take a breath you body pushes up on whatever in underneath you. because you had nails through your feet, it was an extreamly painful task just to keep breathing

I'll take your word for this because not only have I never been crucified, but I also don't have my lungs in my feet.

Do you realize how many prophecies were fufilled in the death and ressurection of Christ? Hundreds!

Kindly list them, or provide a site with a complete list- showing evidence etc.

No, and neither do you. All you know is a series of wholly unsubstantiated, late 1st century, second hand stories fabricated by apologists.

That you believe them reflects little more than infantile gullibility. But that you would actually suggest some great "religious upheavel" is laughably stupid, for the greater the supposed upheaval the more curious the total absence of an extra-biblical record.

By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

William Albright, who was the world's foremost Biblical archaeologist, writes: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Do you see how "laughably stupid" your statement is? I hope you see your incredulous ignorance, not even a shred of evidence to backup your claim and yet I continue:

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and was not the first century it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude toward the Book of Acts began to change. He was forced to conclude that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but rather a mid-first century account.


Please refrain from making such idiotic statements in the future as they very well discredit your "arguments". Peace be with you.

I'll take your word for this because not only have I never been crucified, but I also don't have my lungs in my feet.

with this statement you say to me that this whole thing is a joke. Let me tell you buring in hell for an eternity is no joke. you do not comprehend what you read, only critisize.

grace be to you

By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

William Albright, who was the world's foremost Biblical archaeologist, writes: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Do you see how "laughably stupid" your statement is? I hope you see your incredulous ignorance, not even a shred of evidence to backup your claim and yet I continue:

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and was not the first century it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude toward the Book of Acts began to change. He was forced to conclude that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but rather a mid-first century account.


Please refrain from making such idiotic statements in the future as they very well discredit your "arguments". Peace be with you.

Before dealing with the points you (sic!) raised, let me state that I find plagiarism to be both dishonest and repugnant. Those who employ such methods are worthy of little but contempt. See: Are The Biblical Records Reliable? (http://thebereans.net/ref-bibreliable.shtml) for the source of your drivel.

By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Second century CE manuscripts in no way 'confirm the [historical] accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts'.

William Albright, who was the world's foremost Biblical archaeologist, writes: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Albright has long been surpassed, both in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and NT textual criticism. Appeals to Albright consciously ignore decades of analysis.

Do you see how "laughably stupid" your statement is? ... yet I continue: ...
You are a liar. It is not you, but McDowell who continues.

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived.
By whom? Christian apologists?

He was forced to conclude that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.
How very nice. Geographical, sociological, and political accuracy in secular books is not at all unusual. Any long-time resident of Fulton County, Illinois, can read Spoon River Anthology and easily recognize that its author, Edgar Lee Masters, was familiar with the geography of the region in which this book was set, but that by no means would prove that Masters was divinely inspired as he wrote. He was simply familiar with a geographical region that he had lived in. If Luke had traveled with the apostle Paul, as claimed in the book of Acts, why should we not expect that he would have become familiar with the places they visited?

The book of Acts claimed 26 different miracles between the ascension of Jesus in 1:6-11 and the apostle Paul's survival of the bite of a venomous serpent in 28:3-6. These miracles were as extraordinary as the claims that Peter struck two people dead (5:1-11) and resurrected Dorcus (9:39-42) and that Paul struck a sorcerer blind (13:4-12) and raised Eutychus from the dead (20:7-11), yet not one scrap of extrabiblical evidence has ever been found to corroborate Luke's claims that all of these events happened. Some of them allegedly happened in the presence of witnesses that sometimes numbered several thousand, as in the case of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the presence of "devout Jews" from "every nation under heaven"(v:5) to whom Peter said that Jesus of Nazareth had been approved of God to them by "mighty works and signs which God did by him in [their] midst" even as they themselves knew (2: 22), yet despite the alleged openness of many of these extraordinary events that filled the works of Luke, not one of them has ever been confirmed by unbiased, disinterested contemporary records.

- see Luke: A First-Rate Historian? (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/2/022front.html)Luke in no way confirms the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

Please refrain from making such idiotic statements in the future as they very well discredit your "arguments". Peace be with you.
You demonstrate yourself to be both dishonest and incompetent - a true exemplar of Christian ethics.

Now, my plagiarizing little fool, do you have anything remotely resembling evidence?

That people believe they can answer this question with more than 'because I choose too' amazes me.

with this statement you say to me that this whole thing is a joke.

I don't remember adding a smiley to my post, I merely stated I would have to take your word for it because I've never been crucified. I can quite confidently tell you that's a fact, unless I was crucified but have just forgotten about the whole affair. I would also ponder that if jesus is in actuality god himself, then it couldn't have been that bloody painful- unless he chose to feel pain, in which case it's his own bloody choice. I see religious people saying "well, a sinner chooses to go to hell so it's his own fault". I will reverse that and say "god chose to suffer so it's his own fault". What, you think I should show sympathy to god because he suffered, because he chose to suffer, because he chose for people to sin, and because he chose that somehow killing himself painfully was the way of removing the sin that he had chosen people to be full of?

Get real.

Let me tell you buring in hell for an eternity is no joke.

I'll have to take your word for that aswell, 'cause I've never been there. I can just tell you how glad I am you managed to escape.

The diferance between God choosing for Jesus to die and God willing it is Jesus had say in the matter. If it were God's choice, Jesus would have been praying for stength to do what he was supposed to do. Because it was his will, Jesus was praying, if there's any way possible to avoid the please let it be, but if not, I want to please you and do this.

Part of life is death. The wages of sin is death. This means that you will die. The kind of death Christ died was the death of a criminal, when he himself did NOTHING wrong.

Now, my plagiarizing little fool, do you have anything remotely resembling evidence?

As your argument has descended to name calling I see no reason to continue our "discussion".

Good day.

Here's (http://www.carlsbadnm.com/sleeman/Story/rcrucify.htm) a link that discusses what crucifiction was like, since you've never been .

If it were God's choice, Jesus would have been praying for stength to do what he was supposed to do. Because it was his will

This is nonsensical. god could choose whatever he felt like. You can't say if it was his choice jesus would have prayed one particular prayer. All your post shows is that jesus had no choice, and even asked to be saved from it- it in no way implies that god doesn't have a choice.

In short: god chose for jesus to die, jesus said "do i have to?" and god answered "yes".

The kind of death Christ died was the death of a criminal, when he himself did NOTHING wrong

What do you mean 'nothing wrong'? He blasphemed. Somehow he failed to show the jews that he was indeed the messiah, but claimed to be just like many others have done throughout history. In those days blasphemy was an offence that you could be killed for. In some countries it still is. The very same thing happened to David Koresh. He claimed to be the messiah and one way or another ended up dead.

If he really was the messiah, the jews would have been bowing at his feet, instead of the people who would have been pagan enemies of the jews deciding he was and writing a book about him.

That people believe they can answer this question with more than 'because I choose too' amazes me.

Lol, yeah, I know whatcha mean. :D


I agree with GuessWho. I don't meant to turn this into a creation vs big bang thread, but I look outside at the world that surrounds me and I think: this is no accident, it was created and was created with a purpose. That's my thoughts. GuessWho may hay differant reasons.

Damnation will come to those that do not repent. You want to know something funny? I have trouble with over-analyzing stuff, too analytical for my own good. But you know what, I belive in God and I believe in the Bible as being absolute truth. Blind faith is when you believe something just because someone else spoke it. The faith I have is not blind. Everywhere I look, I see God's handi-work.


See that's the thing. I'm glad you can look around and see God's handiwork and all. That's enough proof to me as well that there's an Almighty Creator. However, you still have blind faith and that's the questions that are answered about God through the Bible. It's one thing to say and believe that there is a God, it's another to try and define God and his history which is what religion is. And that’s not even taking into account that there’s very little, in some cases no, proof towards most biblical claims other than the Bible itself. I mean geez, substitute the word “Bible” for something else and only a fool would believe, let alone dedicate their lives to, something with very little proof of. As one can see with televangelists, all you need to do is use the word GOD and you can sell anything. Funny what fear of the unknown can do to people.

Anyhow, with me, I seperate God and religion. I believe in a God but I try not to define that which I do not know and why should I follow the written beliefs of man when various people try to define God through various religions yet they do not all agree with one another?

I can easily understand why one may believe in God, but it's another thing to follow a certain religion. Why is it you follow Christianity as opposed to another religion? I mean heck, they all talk about God so there's a common thing. It's a bit silly to say that one is a Christian because they believe in God, lol. So why is it that you follow the religion that you do? Most likely it's because you were raised that way which I feel sorry for you, if so. It's much better when one follows a religion because they noticed the similar beliefs they share. Otherwise it's all meaningless because the person was basically brainwashed since they didn't choose the religion they follow through their own means but rather force.

I really don't see any unique or heart-felt reasons why people follow the religion they do. It's usually all generic stuff which all other religions can share. I read good morals in the Bible, I see this, I see that. I have fun singing in my church choir. I believe in God so I'm a Christian. See all the generic reasons? To me, the Bible isn't all that great. I've read more beautiful stuff in other holy texts. Christianity is about Jesus, not God, so since you seem to believe in God due to all the handiwork you see about you, you should try reading other religious texts that tell more about their thinkings of God, and I'm sure you'll find something that fits more with your beliefs towards the Almighty than a book about Jesus.

Remember, you don’t have to be a Christian to believe in God. If God is who you seek, you may as well follow all religions, not just one. To follow just one religion to find out about God is insulting to the other religions. The same to one who just believes in Jesus. It’s insulting to all the other important past prophets as well. Why choose one and dismiss the rest (not saying you do, but many do), especially when others are written more beautifully and actually have more meaning and things that’ll make ya think?

- N

Neildo, this might be helpful to you:

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.


What the text is saying is that we know God without any "interference" from the Bible, parents, and such stimuli. On the issue of blind faith, the text also discusses the evidence of our Creator.

This might also prove helpful in reading the text:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=ro&chapter=001&verse=19

Why should Romans have any more authority/credibility than a letter from David Karesh?

Enigma'07, back on page four I asked you a question about the deaths of Jesus and the Apostles, and whether their demise meant they weren't well liked or convincing to many of those that met them, and whether the bible, written many years after the events it allegedly details, was therefore revisionist.

Care to comment?

I mean, well liked people do not suffer such deaths, do they?

Sorry I didn't answer, you adressed it to southstar. I believe that well liked people are killed sometimes. If a radicle group starts to oppose the current government, they generally can get many people that agree with them, especialy if the current govermnent is more of a dictatorship. These radicles are killed, if caught, even though they're populure with the people.

With the death of the apostles, and many other christians throughout time, I believe that it proves that these people had a strong belief in God, if they are willing to die for him. Christianity has thrived for 2000+ years, despite pursecution. To me, this show there must be some thing special about it. There's a book called "Jesus Freaks" that tells the stories of hundreds of martyrs. Generally people don't die for something worthless.

The Bible was inspired by God, which ment he told these men what to write. In books such as the gospels, and Paul's letters, they are written by people that actually witnessed these things occur, not just wrote 3rd hand accounts of it.

What the text is saying is that we know God without any "interference" from the Bible

Ummmmm... the text you used was from the bible. So you're using what the bible tells you to claim you know god without any interference from the bible. Lol.

The Bible was inspired by God, which ment he told these men what to write.

According to who?

Further to that, the same can be said of many other such holy texts - the vedas, the koran, david koresh's writings about the seventh seal, the epic of gilgamesh and so on and so forth. Because they say they were all god inspired, does that make it true? If not, what makes the biblical texts true and the others false?

Ummmmm... the text you used was from the bible. So you're using what the bible tells you to claim you know god without any interference from the bible. Lol.



I suppose you ignored the link as well. Typical. Take only the part you want to see and then jeer.

I suppose you ignored the link as well. Typical. Take only the part you want to see and then jeer

I didn't ignore it at all, I read it from start to finish- and he's doing exactly the same thing. However, this isn't about John Gill, it's about you using biblical passages to claim you can know god without using the bible. I find it amusing.

With the death of the apostles, and many other christians throughout time, I believe that it proves that these people had a strong belief in God, if they are willing to die for him. Christianity has thrived for 2000+ years, despite pursecution. To me, this show there must be some thing special about it. There's a book called "Jesus Freaks" that tells the stories of hundreds of martyrs. Generally people don't die for something worthless.
They had faith. Faith can have worth to someone even if the object of their faith cannot be proven. Indeed, it is part of the nature of faith that it is a kind of leap into the unknown, a trust in something that just resonates with your emotional needs. The question is why do people believe in Jesus. For the most part, I don't think the reason is rigorously proven historical fact. There were Christians for a long time that based their faith only on an inherited narrative, and the credibility of the church heiarchy. It was a need to feel that someone, somewhere, sometime, had a direct connection to a force that controls everything. The reason that this helps people is because most of the time, life seems out of control. If you think events are governed by a devine force, you might not worry so much, you might not even worry about your own death. It is an antidote for fear. Personally, I think it's not a very healthy attitude. It is similar to identifying with other ideals, like a tribe or nation, which can have the same effect.

Why do people have faith at all? Sort and simple, why do people believe in God? because he is real to them. as real as the peson that gave birth to you. People don't believe because they don't see God and thus figure he must not exist.

I didn't ignore it at all, I read it from start to finish- and he's doing exactly the same thing. However, this isn't about John Gill, it's about you using biblical passages to claim you can know god without using the bible. I find it amusing.

Ok then. Skip it.

I thought MW said she was never going to leave us. Where is she?

Why do people have faith at all? Sort and simple, why do people believe in God? because he is real to them. as real as the peson that gave birth to you. People don't believe because they don't see God and thus figure he must not exist.
People think the United States is real, too, but its just because they all share the same idea.

You confused me.

Good, that's a start. Do you think the United States are real? I assume, like many people, that you do. But it exists only in the minds of people, like God. To a bird or butterfly, the border means nothing.

jesus, may or may not have existed.
however, you cant convince people, by using the bible, it is just a book.
it is not a book of proven fact, but it has a nice moral content.
but also fantasy.
what, "jesus" said is just hearsay.