1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Spartan, May 3, 2019.

  1. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Personally, I don't think that there was much of a historical Jesus.

    He strikes me as just about as fictional as Plato's take on Socrates.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Marcion

    Marcion Self-realisation and Service to the Universe

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Ratings:
    +697
    Religion:
    (non-religious) Manava Dharma/Orthodox Right-Hand Tantra-Yoga/Neo-Humanism
    I certainly see the Christian Christ Jesus as largely fictional. But the Yeshua of Q-lite may or may not have been historically connected to the person who allegedly started the original mission.
     
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    We do have a documented fulfillment of prophecy, with extra-biblical confirmations to boot.

    Documenting A Miracle


    It's also a fact that science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

    What? Are you saying Jesus is speaking to or for himself? No, he's talking to the Father in heaven, asking why the Father has forsaken him. And the reason is that for a time, Jesus became sin for us and carried the weight of all that on his shoulders.
     
  4. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think the more you study the more you will find Jesus is indeed a very historical person. Here's some recommended reading that should change your mind, assuming there's no bias.

    "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
    "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
    "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
    "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
    "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.
     
  5. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    John 8:58 - "Before Abraham was born, I am."

    I think someone has to be spiritually cognizant, though, to receive that.

    Not a chance.

    "The suffering servant has qualities that were never true of Israel:

    a. The suffering servant is depicted as being innocent. He did no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8b, 9b). Israel is never told she would suffer for being innocent. (See, for example, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.) In addition, Israel is never depicted as being innocent. A cursory reading through Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, and all the prophets make this abundantly clear. (See, for example, Isaiah 59:1-15, esp. verses 4-7 and Psalm 14:3. These are just two of hundreds of examples that could be cited.) That was why so many sacrifices were needed. Israel was never righteous, or even close to being righteous. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel is pictured as continually rejecting God and being repeatedly judged for her sins. This is in sharp contrast to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, who is portrayed as an innocent sufferer."

    Ten Reasons Isaiah 53 Cannot Refer to Israel - Hope In Messiah

    Tsk tsk...

    1. The genealogy of Jesus isn't even mentioned in Mark.

    2. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke clearly show David as a forefather. Early tradition says Luke's is showing Jesus' mother Mary as the descendant of King David. And Matthew arguably has Joseph as a legal, though not his biological father. There's all kinds of websites that go into this so I'm not going to spend eons of time on it.

    But you're missing the big point: Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of God (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc.).

    I doubt you'll agree but there it is anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,928
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Religion:
    Skeptical

    If the report is true ─ it could have been written after the event ─ then the explanation would be along the lines that astrological observations were sufficiently understood to predict a lunar eclipse. Move along, folks, nothing miraculous here.
    One reason for that is that no one has a definition of 'God' such that if we found a real one we could tell it was God, or a god. Nor is there any definition of 'godness', a real property that a real god would have and eg a superscientist would not have, These are gaping holes in theology, completely consistent with God existing only in the imagination of individuals, and wholly incompatible with the notion of a real God, one with objective existence.

    Not until someone provides those will there be anything for science to look for in reality.
    In Matthew 27: 45 Jesus says,
    ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν θεέ μου θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες, ​
    in which ηλι represents the Semitic word variously rendered Eli, Eloi, Elo, etc, meaning 'God', and θεέ μου is Greek for 'my god' (vocative case). So Jesus does NOT call on the Father, he calls on God, and under the Trinity doctrine he IS 100% of God. Therefore if the Trinity doctrine is correct he's saying what I said previously, Me, me, why have I forsaken me? (And anyway as I pointed out before, he's his own father, since he's son of God ─ at least as far as Matthew's and Luke's inseminated Jesuses are concerned.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,928
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I dealt with that at the start, pointing out that Jesus had been in Heaven with God from the start.

    It is NOT a claim to be god.

    Try again.
    So it's a magic prophecy instead, you say? Tell that to any marines you come across.
    All four gospels' Jesuses, in breach of Temple law, violently drove out the money changers who were a long-established part of the Temple's revenue system. If violence is a disqualification, Jesus is instantly disqualified.
    Take off your apologists' hat for a moment and become an honest citizen sitting on a jury. In the first case you've had to consider, a driver has sworn that she didn't drive through the red light, a miraculous force from heaven seized control of her car and drove it through the red light then went away again; and without much effort you've concluded that was too silly for words.

    In the second, you have to consider this: which is the more credible explanation? (In the real world, on a real jury, that is.)

    A. the author of Isaiah magically knew the events of five centuries in the future and wrote them down as a prophecy though never mentioning it was a prophecy?
    or
    B. the author of Mark, not knowing anything very much about the actual biography of Jesus, who if the stories he'd heard were true had died about forty years earlier, used Isaiah 53 to plot the story he wanted to tell when writing Mark?

    I notice you pick and choose which of my questions you answer. Please answer this one.
    Except to make it clear that he isn't descended from David (Mark 12:35).
    Yes, of Joseph, and as you know, neither the Jesus of Matthew or the Jesus of Luke is the son of Joseph.
    That simply wouldn't happen. My bet is that one early tradition partly agreed with Mark, that Jesus was the normally born son of Joseph, and partly disagreed with Mark, and required descent from David, so the genealogies were invented by protoChristians, unfortunately without consultation, to show that Joseph was of the line of David.
    Leaving aside Mark's Jesus' denial that descent from David is relevant at all (a) what did the law actually say back then about when a non-parent can be a 'legal' parent? (b) that wouldn't make Jesus 'of the line of David' anyway.
    You're missing the big point ─ magic only happens in stories, not in reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,954
    Ratings:
    +6,534
    Religion:
    None
    When the language is vague or ambiguous, the reader is free to interpret it however he likes. Such language has no definite meaning. When this is done deliberately, it is called poetry, an invitation to inject yourself into the interpretation as a sort of verbal Rorschach test.

    When the purpose was to write prose, if it's vague or ambiguous, it's just bad prose. It's not that hard for an educated human being to be clear and specific, so it should be a piece of cake for a deity. Have you ever cooked from a recipe or given somebody directions to your home? If the language doesn't clearly specify what step follows what, guess what? No edible meal, and no visitor.

    The stakes are orders of magnitude higher if one's afterlife rests in the accurate description of what God commands. I expect at least as much clear language from a god as I do from a cook.

    I've always been confused about how one fulfills laws. Prophecy and promises can be fulfilled, but not laws. You can obey a law, break a law, enact a law, strike down a law, and several other things, but to the best of my knowledge, you cannot complete or fulfill a law. Nor can you paint one, entertain one, or take its square root. These are all category errors.

    For example, how does one fulfill a speeding law, and how does that invalidate the law? No matter how many times you obey laws, they remain in effect until they are rescinded or expire.

    Then there's this:

    "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be call the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' - Matthew 5:17-19

    Excellent post.

    Apparently not as clear as you think. I think that @blü has made a compelling counter-argument. Of course, it sounded to me like he wasn't arguing about whether Jesus was called God by others, but rather, whether he called himself that.

    Or the apologist can just assert that the scripture means whatever one wants it to mean, and if called on a dishonest reading by an unbeliever, just attempt to disqualify the unbeliever's opinions, perhaps because he doesn't know how to read and understand scripture, because only believers are granted the power of biblical discernment.

    I have been collecting these disqualification efforts from apologists for some time, and the list is long now. Here are the last several entries:

    [62] “The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them.”

    [63] “to have a proper understanding of what God desires you need to read the whole of scripture vs picking out isolated passages.”

    [64] “Fixating on individual verses, especially in the Old Testament, written in an ancient pre-Christian culture, is not really a great way to read the bible.”

    [65] It's quite obvious that you don't have any understanding about Spiritual discernment : "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14

    [66] A deeper understanding is important.

    [67] I think someone has to be spiritually cognizant, though, to receive that.

    My experience is that it's the other way around - only the unbeliever is free to read scripture objectively and with an open mind. The believer is constrained by the faith-based assumption that the Bible is coherent, accurate, and morally sound. So what does he do when he encounters words that seem to contradict that? He makes the cognizant dissonance go away with one of the tools in his apologetics toolbox, such as retranslating words.

    Here a rhetorical question (needs no answer, just food for thought) : How much can we remove from the biblical account before the story is no longer close enough to the character in the scriptures to be called a historical Jesus? I think that we can agree that if everything said about Jesus except the miracles actually happened to an itinerant first century rabbi named Jesus and a group of apostles, that we could call what remained a historical Jesus.

    Now, suppose that all naturalistic aspects of the New Testament actually occurred but one. Maybe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem during a census. If that fact can be disproved (and I believe it has), but all of the rest were correct, we could probably all agree that a historical Jesus actually once existed.

    At the other extreme, suppose that none of the story has a historical correlate apart from the fact that a rabbi named Jesus existed in the first century CE, perhaps dozens. If that were the case, we could probably agree that Jesus of the New Testament was a fictional character.

    How about something about halfway between these extremes of almost all historically accurate and almost all mythology. Suppose the story is true except for the miracles, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, he only had eight disciples and one was named Felix, Jesus was not a carpenter, his mother was not named Mary, there was no Last Supper or betrayal by Judas, Jesus was married and had children, and the Sermon on the Mount never occurred, but the rest is historical such as overturning the money changers and telling the parables attributed to Jesus. Is that still the Jesus of the New Testament?

    You may already be familiar with the sorities paradox : "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times : Is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?"

    Thoughts?

    I've read the entire Christian Bible three times. I can assure you that there is no mention of Jesus in the Old Testament.

    This is a nice example of the phenomenon to which I just referred. You want the Old Testament to predict the coming of Jesus as messiah, so that's what you see. I don't need to see that. I am free to report what the scripture actually says without twisting it to conform to a faith-based preconception. So, we offer different interpretations of what the words mean.

    Are any written by secular humanists or others with no religious agenda to promote? Most unbelievers are pretty much done looking to apologists for sound, impartial arguments. We already know their "conclusions" before they start - that which they've chosen to believe by faith.

    Then, as I explained earlier on this thread, they massage the evidence to seem to point toward their faith-based premise as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence front-loaded to appear to lead to the premise, which is presented as a conclusion, or what I called a pseudo-conclusion
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,954
    Ratings:
    +6,534
    Religion:
    None
    Biblical prophecy is what has come to be called low quality prophecy to distinguish it from high quality prophecy such as the prophecies that come from science.

    High quality prophecy is specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed. High quality prophecy must be accurate, it must be verified that it came before the event predicted, and that it was fulfilled completely.

    Low quality prophecy, such as that from biblical scripture, horoscopes, psychics, and the like, is relatively vague and nonspecific, predicts trivial or predictable events, may be self-fulling or written after the fact. Predicting that a new religion will experience prejudice, for example, doesn't require omniscience. How many times are we told that "that was foretold in the scriptures" as if low quality prophecy like that indicates divine prescience.

    Biblical prophecies such as the one in Daniel 2:31-48, where, Daniel interprets the prophetic meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, are all examples of low quality prophecy - in this case, something too vague to be considered high quality prophecy. It is about a horrific-looking, immense, man-like figure made of clay, iron, brass, silver, and gold, which was pulverized to dust by a stone that became a huge mountain, and was then carried away by the wind. According to Daniel, this allegedly forecasted a series of lesser kingdoms to come in the future. Really? Maybe it was predicting 9/11 or the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico. The argument is just as (un)sound.

    Here's what high quality prophecy looks like:

    The Higgs boson was prophesied by the priests of particle physics to exist at a very specific energy, charge, spin, and parity. A very large and powerful machine was built on the justified belief that science would be shown to be accurate yet again in its prophesy, just as it had been with the prediction that matter could bend the path of light, and that there would be found a relatively homogeneous radiation detectable in all directions at a specific frequency and temperature.

    Science already an impressive track record for prophecy, or prediction as it is more commonly known in science. In every case, something unexpected was prophesied to exist, its qualities specified, and it was found that the prophecy was accurate.

    Or how about an example from fiction of a prophecy that would be convincing that somebody was predicting very specific events, I have to turn to fiction for this, because it doesn't happen in reality, but this is what it would take to convince the skeptical, critical thinker :

    There was a movie some years back called Frequency in which Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts his father from his father's future by ham radio. To convince his father that he, the son, really is calling him from his father's future - from 1998 back to 1969 - the son discusses the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series, which the father is watching live in 1969 on TV in a local pub :

    "Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

    Then the father watches it happen on TV.

    That's what high quality "prophecy" of future events looks like, only it wouldn't be fiction. This would be a convincing demonstration of knowledge of future events, once fraud such as a tape-delayed broadcast of an already played game is ruled out. It's extremely specific and unexpected, preceded the event predicted, not self-fulfilling, and accompanied by no error. Biblical prophecy just can't compare to that, which is why it doesn't convince skeptics.

    This is also low quality prophecy. It's not convincing.

    High quality prophecy at a minimum would have specified the time and date of the birth of the messiah, his name and that of his parents, and specific events and places

    It's a fact, but an irrelevant one. Science also hasn't proven that vampires and leprechauns do not and cannot exist. So what?

    It's also a fact that there may be no way to demonstrate that our universe is godless even if that is the fact. That's fine. If so, it means that science will never have a need for a god hypothesis.

    That hasn't been the case for me or many other skeptics. But then, we process information differently than faith-based thinkers.

    Of course, it doesn't matter either way whether the story of Jesus is pure fiction (myth) or was based in part on a real man's life (legend) if that man wasn't a god or channeling a god.

    "Gary Robert Habermas is an American historian, New Testament scholar, philosopher of religion, and Christian apologist who frequently writes and lectures on the resurrection of Jesus"​

    "Joslin "Josh" McDowell (born August 17, 1939) is an Evangelical Protestant Christian apologist and evangelist."​

    "Norman Leo Geisler (born July 21, 1932) is a Christian systematic theologian and philosopher. He is the co-founder of two non-denominational evangelical seminaries (Veritas Evangelical Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary). He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University and has made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, the history of philosophy, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, ethics, and more. He is the author, coauthor, or editor of over 90 books and hundreds of articles."​

    "Lee Patrick Strobel (born January 25, 1952) is an American Christian author... and runs a video apologetics web site"

    None of these are expected to be unbiased sources. They're all Christian apologists, an area with a terrible reputation with skeptics. I don't trust any of these authors to accumulate all of the relevant evidence and interpret it the same way that any experienced critical thinker and skeptic would.

    Do you have anything from a mutually trusted source? Where are the books from people with no Christian agenda? There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, no valid scholarship not also available to unbelievers. If you have no non-Christian scholars agreeing with these apologists, why not? If you do have such sources, why aren't you providing those instead.

    Were you aware that they contradict one another? One shows that Jesus came 56 generations after Abraham, the other 43.

    Also, one ends with

    28. Jeconiah
    29. Shealtiel
    30. Zerubbabel
    31. Abiud
    32. Eliakim
    33. Azor
    34. Zadok
    35. Achim
    36. Eliud
    37. Eleazar
    38. Matthan
    39. Jacob
    40. Joseph & Mary
    41. Jesus

    The other ends

    64. Mahath
    65. Naggai
    66. Hesli
    67. Nahum
    68. Amos
    69. Mattathias
    70. Joseph
    71. Jannai
    72. Melchi
    73. Levi
    74. Matthat
    75. Heli
    76. Mary & Joseph
    77. Jesus

    You probably know that you have only one (biological) father, one paternal grandfather, one paternal great-grandfather, etc.. all the way back to the last universal common ancestor of all life. If somebody presents you with two different genealogies for yourself, at least one of them is wrong.

    But that's not an acceptable conclusion for the faith-based apologist that believes that scripture is of divine origin. Time to go into sanitation mode and come up with some answer - any answer - that seems to reconcile these two.

    Incidentally, I noticed that you asked me for evidence that the gospels have been embellished over time, I provided it, and you didn't comment. Can we assume that you were convinced by my argument, or at the least, unwilling to confront it? The argument still stands unchanged, and unchallenged.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,744
    Ratings:
    +6,488
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Christians believe what they WANT to believe, and it is not based upon reason, it is based upon faith. From my point of view as a counseling psychologist, what most believers (not only Christians) believe is based upon what they WANT to believe, what appeals to them on an emotional level and what fits their lifestyle. I do not think that most people actually stop to ask if what they believe is really true so challenging them with rational arguments is of no avail. I welcome rational arguments because a religion that is not based upon reason is of no use to anyone.

    I do not know the Bible very well and I have never read it cover to cover as you have, and I have never studied it or read what others have written about it, because I was never interested until lately. But now I post to a lot of Christians because I just joined two Christian forums, so I would like to see the evidence that the gospels have been embellished over time, or any other evidence you have that backs up what you have said.

    Baha'is take various positions in the divine origin of the Bible and its degree of accuracy, but I don't really have a position as of yet because I do not know enough to take a position.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    So you're thinking an eclipse of the sun can occur during a full moon? That's bizarre.

    The crucifixion of Jesus occurred during a full moon. So dig deep into your ditty bag and tell me what caused the strange darkness that lasted for three hours?
     
    #91 Spartan, May 5, 2019
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  12. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian

    <facepalm> That's how skeptics think - that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, biased, or an apologist for fairy tales. I've read Habermas extensively and he is light years above his skeptics.​

    See above.

    I didn't see anything else noteworthy in your post that dozens of Christian websites haven't answered or refuted.

    In conclusion, show me one (just one - your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven to be false. Cite the pertinent scriptures and your argument. I'll answer.

    By the way, the census of Quirinius has been brought up several times and debated ad nauseum. It's basically an argument of silence against it, which is a logical fallacy. You can catch that debate on other threads. But if you want to go there then that's fine.
     
    #92 Spartan, May 5, 2019
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  13. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,310
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    That's doubtful, as there are inconsistencies. However, even if it does, does that make it factually accurate? The bible is only a record of what was believed, not what is true.

    That's not what Genesis says. Whether El or Yahweh, Jesus still isn't on the list.

    Have you noticed Paul wasn't there? He's just making stuff up.

    In as much as we all are.

    "The bible" doesn't say it. An author or two says it, and none of them were authors of Genesis.

    I'd like to know if he was clinically dead first. The fact we had to put bells attached to graves up til relatively recently tells me we totally suck at determining death.

    Go from Mark to John and you'll see a definite evolution of the character from some temperamental carpenter's kid to a demi-god.

    Yeah but we really can't tell who is the correct Jesus: Sermon on the Mount Jesus or "Let's beat up some guys with a whip" Jesus.

    I know, right? I actually managed to drive through the end of a rainbow on the way home once, and there wasn't a single pot of gold! The disappointment was real. :)

    But for ages livestock were used to forgive sins, right? They weren't God and didn't come back to life either. And yet the ritual remained.

    Death isn't necessary at all for forgiveness. Even mortals can forgive others without dying.

    None of the OT I can think of establishes this at all. It's pulled out of the authors' behinds.

    God confirms the serpent's statement that the real reason He didn't want them to eat it was that it granted godhood or at least godlike powers. I mean, the confirmation is verbatim.

    And there are examples where he is not, such as being shocked that gentiles can have faith.

    But I don't care what Paul thinks. He inserted himself into a story that doesn't belong to him.

    There are scriptures that reveal Yahweh wasn't the Head Boss, but His Dad El was. They had a whole pantheon.

    Where is he in Abe's story?

    So what? We're all made in His image.

    Dogs can forgive sins. It's not that hard.

    1. Be mad that someone wronged you.
    2. Don't be mad that someone wronged you.

    See? Easy peasy.

    But it's not true. We are told to forgive others.

    Where is he in Genesis?

    Christians say that Satan is the ruler of the world, which means Jesus should be fired if he's the manager.

    Was Paul there? He doesn't even know the guy.

    Again, why isn't this supported by the relevant texts in Hebrew scriptures?

    There were also many people who followed Jesus or listened to Jesus and yet we don't hear from them. Wonder why? It's like asking Fox News to talk about Democrats.

    And yet we don't have much to go on from all these enemies. We never hear from them.

    Why would the Romans care? They had lots of gods. One more wouldn't hurt.


    I tried reading John 10 but it never mentions anyone important who witnessed this conversation. Surely none of the authors.

    He could claim lots of things. Supporting the conclusion is needed.

    So you need to rely on a Greek translation to pull out the pun?

    Yes, let's take the word of someone tripping balls while stewing in a jail cell bitter about his life. That makes sense.

    Which one, El or Yahweh?

    But he's God, so why should it matter?

    I mean, two angels blinded an angry mob in Sodom. God can't get rid of some stoners?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Let's start with that. Show me one person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven false. Cite the scripture number and your argument.
     
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,928
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    It would be, but you're the one who believes in magic, so what's the problem?

    You think the sun stood still in the sky for Joshua, don't you? Because as the bible says it goes round and round the immovably fixed earth, so you just have to know where the brake is ─ et voilà!
    You mean the strange darkness that happened when Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses died, but not when Paul's or Mark's or John's Jesuses died? And that no one else in antiquity noticed? I'd say that was in the same basket as Matthew's zombies, a Wonderful Embellishment, a tall tale nowhere else remarked, no?

    How do you explain what happened to Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses that didn't happen to the other Jesuses?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,310
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    The fact that the authors claim to have witnessed or spoken to witnesses regarding events no one witnessed for starters. Feel free to go from there.
     
  17. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Show me your evidence to support your position. Not just a claim or a theory but evidence.
     
  18. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    We're talking about the darkness during the crucifixion, not Joshua. Why don't you address that instead of going off on these squirrel trails?

    OK, so you have nothing but blather to counter the multiple accounts from the Gospels and from NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES.

    When you get something concrete let me know. Otherwise you're just fulminating and trying to move the goal posts.
     
  19. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,928
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    You still haven't told me whether you think Mark's Jesus, an ordinary Jew adopted by God at his baptism, or Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses, sons of God by divine insemination, is / are the real deal.

    The point is that both can't be correct. The gospels are wrong (here and elsewhere) on the face of the record.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,535
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    This time, I'm 100% with you!

    Remember, to the natural man, the man without the spirit the new birth gives us, the scriptures are a closed book. To that man they are foolishness.

    1Cor 2:14,

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
    Ya gotta have spirit to know one! :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...