Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 3
- 0
The only people who think the Bible is infallible are the people who haven't read it but pretend they have, and people who will believe the sky is red if told so by some authority figure.
The only people who think the Bible is infallible are the people who haven't read it but pretend they have, and people who will believe the sky is red if told so by some authority figure.
QUOTE
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
/QUOTE
wow, really?
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
/QUOTE
wow, really?
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Wait.. what? People over 1600 years agreeing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't make it true. That's like saying because Muslims have agreed with Muhammed over the past 350 years, he was right about the role of women in society. For most of human history, people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it's truer than the fact that the earth is round, which we've only known for a couple thousand years?
What scientific proof are you talking about? You can PM me if you don't want to start a flame war.
jpetermann
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2001
- 6,751
- 0
- 76
it is too bad people are so insecure that they have to bash every thread on religion, specifically Christianity. There are a lot of posts on here that could use bashing, outside of religious ones.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,459
- 854
- 126
OREOSpeedwagon
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2001
- 8,485
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Wait.. what? People over 1600 years agreeing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't make it true. That's like saying because Muslims have agreed with Muhammed over the past 350 years, he was right about the role of women in society. For most of human history, people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it's truer than the fact that the earth is round, which we've only known for a couple thousand years?
He says "over 1600 years" because that is approximately the span of time over which the Bible was written. He's talking about the Old Testament prophecies predicting the Messiah, and Jesus fulfilling all of them.
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Remember that it took supposedly 50-100 years for people to then "document" this item.
And much was verbal, not written.
Much of the writing comes third hand not first hand.
It is very easy for stories to become embellished.
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Wait.. what? People over 1600 years agreeing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't make it true. That's like saying because Muslims have agreed with Muhammed over the past 350 years, he was right about the role of women in society. For most of human history, people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it's truer than the fact that the earth is round, which we've only known for a couple thousand years?
What scientific proof are you talking about? You can PM me if you don't want to start a flame war.
If he wasn't resurrected, where's the body? Think about it . . . that would have nipped the "troublesome little sect" that was bothering the Romans and Pharisees right in the bud if they had been able to produce a body. If he wasn't resurrected, why would his followers allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than say, "Hey, you got me, his body is buried over yonder." And we're talking about real torture too, not the Gitmo stuff - boiled alive in oil, stoning, drawn and quartering, whipping, etc.
The fact that Paul, one of the top inquisitors slash torturers around, became a disciple of Christ, should prove the truth of His resurrection more than anything else. That sort of conversion would be akin to Osama bin Laden joining the Republican party.
Edited because I can't spell . . .sigh.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 175
- 106
Originally posted by: XMan
If he wasn't resurrected, where's the body? Think about it . . . that would have nipped the "troublesome little sect" that was bothering the Romans and Pharisees right in the bud if they had been able to produce a body. If he wasn't resurrected, why would his followers allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than say, "Hey, you got me, his body is buried over yonder." And we're talking about real torture too, not the Gitmo stuff - boiled alive in oil, stoning, drawn and quartering, whipping, etc.
The fact that Paul, one of the top inquisitors slash torturers around, became a disciple of Christ, should prove the truth of His resurrection more than anything else. That sort of conversion would be akin to Osama bin Laden joining the Republican party.
Edited because I can't spell . . .sigh.
So you're saying if Osama bin Laden joined the Republican party it should "prove the truth" of Republican ideals "more than anything else?"
That's ridiculous, as is the assertion that Paul converting to Christianity is evidence in favor of it.
Where is Jesus' body? Operating under the assumption that there is none, we can draw only one of two conclusions:
1. Jesus did exist and his physical body was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.
2. Jesus did not exist.
What evidence does anyone have to support the first conclusion?
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Originally posted by: XMan
If he wasn't resurrected, where's the body? Think about it . . . that would have nipped the "troublesome little sect" that was bothering the Romans and Pharisees right in the bud if they had been able to produce a body. If he wasn't resurrected, why would his followers allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than say, "Hey, you got me, his body is buried over yonder." And we're talking about real torture too, not the Gitmo stuff - boiled alive in oil, stoning, drawn and quartering, whipping, etc.
The fact that Paul, one of the top inquisitors slash torturers around, became a disciple of Christ, should prove the truth of His resurrection more than anything else. That sort of conversion would be akin to Osama bin Laden joining the Republican party.
Edited because I can't spell . . .sigh.
So you're saying if Osama bin Laden joined the Republican party it should "prove the truth" of Republican ideals "more than anything else?"
That's ridiculous, as is the assertion that Paul converting to Christianity is evidence in favor of it.
Where is Jesus' body? Operating under the assumption that there is none, we can draw only one of two conclusions:
1. Jesus did exist and his physical body was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.
2. Jesus did not exist.
What evidence does anyone have to support the first conclusion?
Well, we can automatically discount your second postulation, as secular historical data does in fact show that Jesus existed.
I wasn't arguing the truth of Christianity at all, merely trying to provide an example for how profound Paul's conversion was. If anything it was more profound than the example I give. Saul was a highly placed person in the mainstream power structure of the day, and he gave all of that up - not to mention called a death sentence onto himself - to follow Christ.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 175
- 106
Can you point me to secular historical data that proves Jesus existed? Any examples off the top of your head?
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Wait.. what? People over 1600 years agreeing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't make it true. That's like saying because Muslims have agreed with Muhammed over the past 350 years, he was right about the role of women in society. For most of human history, people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it's truer than the fact that the earth is round, which we've only known for a couple thousand years?
What scientific proof are you talking about? You can PM me if you don't want to start a flame war.
If he wasn't resurrected, where's the body? Think about it . . . that would have nipped the "troublesome little sect" that was bothering the Romans and Pharisees right in the bud if they had been able to produce a body. If he wasn't resurrected, why would his followers allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than say, "Hey, you got me, his body is buried over yonder." And we're talking about real torture too, not the Gitmo stuff - boiled alive in oil, stoning, drawn and quartering, whipping, etc.
The fact that Paul, one of the top inquisitors slash torturers around, became a disciple of Christ, should prove the truth of His resurrection more than anything else. That sort of conversion would be akin to Osama bin Laden joining the Republican party.
Edited because I can't spell . . .sigh.
Where's the body? There's no Roman record of Jesus Christ existing, much less his crucifixion and the existence of a body. People take a lot of religious doctrine at face value. The fact is almost everything we read about Jesus was written hundreds of years later. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never met Jesus. Jesus Christ probably has a real historical basis but we don't even know his name, much less whether he was resurrected or not. The striking similarities between Christianity and the cult of Mithas and Zoroastrianiasm leads me to believe that Christianity evolved over those hundred years, and messianic attributes were borrowed from the general occult of the time and assigned to the man after the fact.
Too bad I am not Muslim.
sucks for you doesn't it?
& since you lack intelligence, my original comment that you quoted: basically says Islam is full of B.S as well since they believed in the magician.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
Some examples then? And do remember that in Isaiah 7:14 the proper translation is "young woman" and not "virgin", and that the prophesy refers to something that is to transpire within a few years (the deposing of the two kings who were then hostile to Israel), not to a messianic figure to come several hundred years later. So you'll need a different passage.
I have never seen a convincing argument that an old testament prophecy pointed clearly to Jesus.
ZV
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
As soon as someone writes a 66-article book about him regarding his trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in perfect Divinity, his appearance on earth predicted to the day written by several unrelated authors, spanned over approximately 1,600 years all in agreement regarding a specific event yet to be culiminated in a fulfillment of prophecy only second to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ himself backed year by year, decade after decade, century after century by literal scientific proof in an undeniable nutshell that IS science as we know it in our world.
Wait.. what? People over 1600 years agreeing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't make it true. That's like saying because Muslims have agreed with Muhammed over the past 350 years, he was right about the role of women in society. For most of human history, people thought the earth was flat. Does that mean it's truer than the fact that the earth is round, which we've only known for a couple thousand years?
What scientific proof are you talking about? You can PM me if you don't want to start a flame war.
If he wasn't resurrected, where's the body? Think about it . . . that would have nipped the "troublesome little sect" that was bothering the Romans and Pharisees right in the bud if they had been able to produce a body. If he wasn't resurrected, why would his followers allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than say, "Hey, you got me, his body is buried over yonder." And we're talking about real torture too, not the Gitmo stuff - boiled alive in oil, stoning, drawn and quartering, whipping, etc.
The fact that Paul, one of the top inquisitors slash torturers around, became a disciple of Christ, should prove the truth of His resurrection more than anything else. That sort of conversion would be akin to Osama bin Laden joining the Republican party.
Edited because I can't spell . . .sigh.
Where's the body? There's no Roman record of Jesus Christ existing, much less his crucifixion and the existence of a body. People take a lot of religious doctrine at face value. The fact is almost everything we read about Jesus was written hundreds of years later. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never met Jesus. Jesus Christ probably has a real historical basis but we don't even know his name, much less whether he was resurrected or not. The striking similarities between Christianity and the cult of Mithas and Zoroastrianiasm leads me to believe that Christianity evolved over those hundred years, and messianic attributes were assigned to the man, if he existed, after the fact.
Cornelius Tacitus' Annals.
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.
Answer works for both of you.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 175
- 106
You must be referring to Book XVIII Chapter 3, passage 3 that says:
"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 was [the] Christ. 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."
This passage has been under great dispute for centuries and is generally not accepted as 100% authentic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...#Testimonium_Flavianum
Also, since Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews around 67 CE, a mere 34 years after a man supposedly healed the sick, brought the dead back to life, and he, himself, was crucified and rose to heaven that Josephus would make mention of this in more than a short, simple paragraph. What about Kind Herod ordering the death of all those male children? Even if Josephus was a Jew and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, surely a massacre of this magnitude would make it in.
It's also equally odd that other historians of the time, such as Philo, Justus of Tiberius, etc. made no mention of any of this? Records exist for the two I mentioned documenting Jewish history of the time but no zero mention of Jesus, nor did anyone of the time.
Didn't anyone feel the earthquake when Jesus died on the cross? What about the 5,000 people he fed with a single fish and loaf of bread? Surely someone of the time would mention that?
And Tacitus' writing concerning Jesus is as follows:
"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 Judaea, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
This is from 116 CE, 80+ years after Jesus was supposed to have lived. Also, later Christian writers that reference to Jesus in earlier writings never make any mention of this passage.
Why is it that the only writings regarding a man whose importance in human history is unparalleled are second or third hand accounts yet not one single person from the time Jesus lived has written anything about him in any surviving documents?
I don't claim to know for certain one way or the other if Jesus existed or not. But the case for his existence is not as strong as many would have us believe.
- Jun 23, 2004
- 5,463
- 8
- 81
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
But aside from even most pro-Christian sources, it is pretty common knowledge these days that Jesus did, in fact, exist.
Aetheists will argue other topics, but this one they usually don't deny.
I recall that wonderful bit of utter ignorance put on by Penn & Teller & whereas they had one old Christian fart on there (who honestly was a horrible rep for Christianity), they *DID* have more than one opposing view and the leading scholar in their little bit almost kinda' chuckled :laugh: at the other dude who denied that Christ was born & lived on this earth.
That was pretty comical.
So despite whether you think he is God in flesh or the resurrection or any other part of his Biblical account of life..............you're definitely in the scholarly minority if you don't think he existed.
Lack of reading comprehension FTL.
I never said you were Muslim, but you sure do work hard to excuse anything they do.
But wait, I just remembered, you have no credebility after our last religious discussion.
AMCRambler
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2001
- 7,701
- 26
- 91
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter