How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[sealybobo]

And the crosses they burn are Christian crosses, yes?

>>And the crosses they burn are Christian crosses, yes?<<

No, it's supposed to be a Scottish "X-shaped" cross. Look at the patches on their uniform. The history is here -- The Straight Dope: Why does the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses?.

>>your people are coming out of the woodwork, speaking of the holocaust how many of the KKK are jewish ...<<

The KKK are Democrats and started in the South immediately after the Civil War to support slavery. Just the fact that BW brings it up shows that he's wrong and so are you trying to implicate them with Catholics. White supremacy and hate is not that which is taught in the Catholic religion, but by Darwin's racist theories leading to social Darwinism and fascism. I don't think any are Jewish, but white fascists and social Darwinists.

Ku Klux Klan | Definition & History

They are known to use the fascist tactics of Hitler that I mentioned in trying to associate themselves with the Catholic religion, like Hitler did with the bishops and priests, in order to drum up support for their leftist socialist organization and views. If BW wasn't so ignorant, then he would not have posted such rubbish. Most people understand what the atheists and racists such as Hitler, Darwin, Darwin's cousin and now BW are trying to do. Very creepy. BW has hit a new low with his ignorant and ugly posts.

.

They are known to use the fascist tactics of Hitler that I mentioned in trying to associate themselves with the Catholic religion, like Hitler did with the bishops and priests, in order to drum up support for their leftist socialist organization and views.

the KKK were determined to prevent catholicism from being established in the south, your comment is pure ignorance and were active in that regard as a threat to their "fundamental" biblical beliefs.

they are your people bond, every last one of them, the southern bible belt those above as in the first example are in civilian attire how you must miss the good old days. history will not repeat itself in this country those days are gone forever despite rightwing fanatics as yourself.

Again, you just continue to ignore what I said and proved to you. Instead, you call me ignorant when I read the Bible and science books. Before you were claiming the KKK were Catholics and now are saying they were trying to prevent Catholicism. That follows what the atheists and liberals are doing today. They want to disavow Christianity for Communism.

What about the Nostradamos prophecy? Did another of his prophecies using the Bible come true?

The name "antichrist" is only found in 1 John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. The Apostle John was the only Bible writer to use the name antichrist. Studying these verses, we learn that many antichrists (false teachers) will appear. We had Napoleon, Hitler and Usama (Mabus).

According to Nostradamos, WWIII is to happen next.

During the end times, between the time of Christ's first and Second Coming, there will be one great antichrist who will rise to power. 1 John 2:18 states it as the "last hour."

The one great antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ. He will deny both God the Father and God the Son. He will be a liar and a deceiver.

Don't be the liar and deceiver, BW.

You think John wrote the bible? Sorry but he didn't.

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove.

Do you understand what hearsay is? That means John didn't see Jesus do miracles and then write it down. No no. The person who wrote the gospel according to John heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.

Do you really think Jesus' 11 deciples penned the bible? Like actually sat down and wrote the bible?

Now, you're putting words in my mouth. Don't confuse what I reply to BW from you.

Yes, the Bible was penned by some of Jesus' disciples, but that is besides the point. The Book of James is that of Jesus' brother (actually half-brother). John the Apostle, writer of Bible, is not the same person as John the Baptist. The important point to know is that it was God the Father who had others pen what he wanted to say and witnessed. Any other tricks you have up your sleeve?

There is much we can learn from the apostles and people in the Bible.

Who were the twelve apostles?
Who were the twelve (12) disciples / apostles of Jesus Christ?

Why is it important to study the characters in the Bible? (They're like us.)
Why is it important to study the various characters in the Bible?

As for your Randel Helms, there are many who take the Bible and use it for their own purpose. His income comes from writing books critical of the Bible. I follow Nostradamus, but don't take him seriously. Many write books about him and make money. You sound like you believe this Randel Helms person and not God. Aren't you the one believing in hearsay?

There is no question, the Bible is difficult to read and comprehend. Yet, it is very simple, at the same time. If I do not understand something, then I leave it to the scholars and experts. I've thought about points in the Bible and ended up being wrong or mislead several times. It leads to one being more confident of God's word. I do not know where you went wrong, but perhaps you can find something in the above to help find your way to truth and knowledge.

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

 

[james bond]

"For God so loved the world that they gave their one and only Son, that whoever believes in them shall not perish but have eternal life."

your book is a forgery, nothing religious about it, purely political. and no, Jesus was not offered by the Almighty, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” however that crime remains the same from that time to this day. your book fails to bring justice for the very subject it relys on for remission.

smh. I hope you remember what you have said. It'll get you the lower depths.

Now, Nostradamus is not the Biblical prophecies as I have said. He was a French Catholic Jew living in the 16th century. It's just that he prophecize using the topics in the Bible. It's systematic evidence of things that may or may not happen in the future. For example, his quatrains state that the LHC and Geneva will have some kind of accident. I wouldn't take it seriously if I worked at LHC. Yet, these things are part of his system. The Bible predicted many antichrists before the last antichrist and we've had Saddam and Osama Bin Laden as Mabus. Both died suddenly. It could be Obama, too, if he ends up dying suddenly. All of this prelude to WWIII.

My point is the Biblical prophecies have been 100% correct. Many have already happened. The big one left is the 2nd Coming. Moreover, Nostradamus says that it will be in 2060 or within our lifetimes. Again, I do not know if any of Nostradamus' prophecies are indeed prophecies, but it's part of his systematic approach. It's just something to tuck in the back of one's head.

""What is the spiritual gift of prophecy?"

Answer: The spiritual gift of prophecy is listed among the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and Romans 12:6. The Greek word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” in both passages properly means to “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God, or to make known in any way the truth of God which is designed to influence people. Many people misunderstand the gift of prophecy to be the ability to predict the future. While knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, it was primarily a gift of proclamation (“forth-telling”), not prediction (“fore-telling”)."

A pastor/preacher who declares the Bible can be considered a “prophesier” in that he is speaking forth the counsel of God. With the completion of the New Testament canon, prophesying changed from declaring new revelation to declaring the completed revelation God has already given. Jude 3 speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (emphasis added). In other words, the faith to which we hold has been settled forever, and it does not need the addition or refinement that comes from extra-biblical revelations.

Also, note the transition from prophet to teacher in 2 Peter 2:1: “There were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you” (emphasis added). Peter indicates that the Old Testament age had prophets, whereas the church will have teachers. The spiritual gift of prophecy, in the sense of receiving new revelations from God to be proclaimed to others, ceased with the completion of the Bible. During the time that prophecy was a revelatory gift, it was to be used for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of men (1 Corinthians 14:3). The modern gift of prophecy, which is really more akin to teaching, still declares the truth of God. What has changed is that the truth of God today has already been fully revealed in His Word, while, in the early church, it had not yet been fully revealed."

What is the spiritual gift of prophecy?

Thus, in this sense, you're a prophesier stating the things that you do, "your book is a forgery, nothing religious about it, purely political. and no, Jesus was not offered by the Almighty." "There were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you."

Compare that to the Bible which has been 100% correct. Some people feel these prophecies give God's word power in being forth-telling.

"Prophecy can be divided into two categories. First, speaking forth the Word of God (the Bible) into the lives of people that they would be edified, exhorted, and comforted (1 Corinthians 14:3). In other words, prophecy is sharing applicable Scripture verses with someone, in order to draw him closer to Jesus (edify), to encourage proper behavior (exhort), or to give assurance of the Lord's faithfulness, control and help in any situation (comfort)."

Compare that to Nostradamus, a historical figure whom many people think has been successful as a prophesier, but others think his quatrains are too general and could apply to anything. I just use his premonitions as a system or something to compare against. I don't think he was a false prophet, but just wrote down what he envisioned with his system. He didn't claim these things would happen.

Was Nostradamus a true prophet of God?

 

[james bond]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

 

[sealybobo]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

 

[BreezeWood]

"For God so loved the world that they gave their one and only Son, that whoever believes in them shall not perish but have eternal life."

your book is a forgery, nothing religious about it, purely political. and no, Jesus was not offered by the Almighty, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” however that crime remains the same from that time to this day. your book fails to bring justice for the very subject it relys on for remission.

smh. I hope you remember what you have said. It'll get you the lower depths.

Now, Nostradamus is not the Biblical prophecies as I have said. He was a French Catholic Jew living in the 16th century. It's just that he prophecize using the topics in the Bible. It's systematic evidence of things that may or may not happen in the future. For example, his quatrains state that the LHC and Geneva will have some kind of accident. I wouldn't take it seriously if I worked at LHC. Yet, these things are part of his system. The Bible predicted many antichrists before the last antichrist and we've had Saddam and Osama Bin Laden as Mabus. Both died suddenly. It could be Obama, too, if he ends up dying suddenly. All of this prelude to WWIII.

My point is the Biblical prophecies have been 100% correct. Many have already happened. The big one left is the 2nd Coming. Moreover, Nostradamus says that it will be in 2060 or within our lifetimes. Again, I do not know if any of Nostradamus' prophecies are indeed prophecies, but it's part of his systematic approach. It's just something to tuck in the back of one's head.

""What is the spiritual gift of prophecy?"

Answer: The spiritual gift of prophecy is listed among the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and Romans 12:6. The Greek word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” in both passages properly means to “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God, or to make known in any way the truth of God which is designed to influence people. Many people misunderstand the gift of prophecy to be the ability to predict the future. While knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, it was primarily a gift of proclamation (“forth-telling”), not prediction (“fore-telling”)."

A pastor/preacher who declares the Bible can be considered a “prophesier” in that he is speaking forth the counsel of God. With the completion of the New Testament canon, prophesying changed from declaring new revelation to declaring the completed revelation God has already given. Jude 3 speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (emphasis added). In other words, the faith to which we hold has been settled forever, and it does not need the addition or refinement that comes from extra-biblical revelations.

Also, note the transition from prophet to teacher in 2 Peter 2:1: “There were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you” (emphasis added). Peter indicates that the Old Testament age had prophets, whereas the church will have teachers. The spiritual gift of prophecy, in the sense of receiving new revelations from God to be proclaimed to others, ceased with the completion of the Bible. During the time that prophecy was a revelatory gift, it was to be used for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of men (1 Corinthians 14:3). The modern gift of prophecy, which is really more akin to teaching, still declares the truth of God. What has changed is that the truth of God today has already been fully revealed in His Word, while, in the early church, it had not yet been fully revealed."

What is the spiritual gift of prophecy?

Thus, in this sense, you're a prophesier stating the things that you do, "your book is a forgery, nothing religious about it, purely political. and no, Jesus was not offered by the Almighty." "There were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you."

Compare that to the Bible which has been 100% correct. Some people feel these prophecies give God's word power in being forth-telling.

"Prophecy can be divided into two categories. First, speaking forth the Word of God (the Bible) into the lives of people that they would be edified, exhorted, and comforted (1 Corinthians 14:3). In other words, prophecy is sharing applicable Scripture verses with someone, in order to draw him closer to Jesus (edify), to encourage proper behavior (exhort), or to give assurance of the Lord's faithfulness, control and help in any situation (comfort)."

Compare that to Nostradamus, a historical figure whom many people think has been successful as a prophesier, but others think his quatrains are too general and could apply to anything. I just use his premonitions as a system or something to compare against. I don't think he was a false prophet, but just wrote down what he envisioned with his system. He didn't claim these things would happen.

Was Nostradamus a true prophet of God?

.

smh. I hope you remember what you have said. It'll get you the lower depths.

that will not be difficult as I did not read it out of a book and if it helpful will restate the truth again I have no qualms what the true religion of the Almighty is ...

your book is a forgery, nothing religious about it, purely political. and no, Jesus was not offered by the Almighty, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” however that crime remains the same from that time to this day. your book fails to bring justice for the very subject it relys on for remission.

my point was the ending may be two different closing scenes, one good one bad your book only predicts the latter for everyone but yourselves which is the very concept that will prevent it from ever happening the way you would like.

like sealy asked, where are your individual books if they are suppose to be from God - you have made everything up and your history over time proves what kind of religion you created.

stop your indictments, they only demean your own intractable mindset.

 

[james bond]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

 

[OZman]

Which ones? Links?

Here is a start.

 

[sealybobo]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

 

[hobelim]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

 

[BreezeWood]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

do you suppose that would include the 4th century christian bible that throughout history has been the cause for torture and barbarity against Free Spirited individuals ... in particular.

 

[sealybobo]

Where is the original book John wrote? The Bible was written centuries after. Hearsay

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

What about all the other religions? They did. Why not this one?

 

[sealybobo]

The followers of the new religion back then we're just as devout as followers today. Just look at how devout Muslims are. Do we doubt the deciples of Islam would believe a fairytale?

Christianity even deals with doubt. If you question or deny the story you're a Judas. Brainwashing on a massive scale

 

[hobelim]

Before I can give you an answer, just where are you getting this hearsay?

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

What about all the other religions? They did. Why not this one?

What other religions did what? Claimed to know personally and learn teaching from a figment of their imagination? Uh, no.

You were claiming that Jesus never existed.

Remember?

 

[hobelim]

The followers of the new religion back then we're just as devout as followers today. Just look at how devout Muslims are. Do we doubt the deciples of Islam would believe a fairytale?

Christianity even deals with doubt. If you question or deny the story you're a Judas. Brainwashing on a massive scale

According to the story and historical accounts early christians were just as ridiculed, rejected, despised, and persecuted as Jesus. People didn't seem to have any problem denying the story, just like you. Belief was never compulsory until the religion was assimilated and perverted by Rome.


Islam? WTF?

The religion may be bullshit but mohammed actually existed.

Are you claiming that Mohammed was a figment of their imagination too?

 

[sealybobo]

Most biblical scholars admit that Peter Paul and Luke didn't write the Bible's.

Which ones? Links? I got an answer, but you're avoiding answering my question.

Did Jesus exist?

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the disciples would have endured the things they endured promoting the teachings of a figment of their collective imagination.

What about all the other religions? They did. Why not this one?

What other religions did what? Claimed to know personally and learn teaching from a figment of their imagination? Uh, no.

You were claiming that Jesus never existed.

Remember?

No, I claim a guy who walked on water and was born from a virgin never existed. That's a man made up story.

 

[sealybobo]

The followers of the new religion back then we're just as devout as followers today. Just look at how devout Muslims are. Do we doubt the deciples of Islam would believe a fairytale?

Christianity even deals with doubt. If you question or deny the story you're a Judas. Brainwashing on a massive scale

According to the story and historical accounts early christians were just as ridiculed, rejected, despised, and persecuted as Jesus. People didn't seem to have any problem denying the story, just like you. Belief was never compulsory until the religion was assimilated and perverted by Rome.


Islam? WTF?

The religion may be bullshit but mohammed actually existed.

Are you claiming that Mohammed was a figment of their imagination too?

Well Mohammed was an actual man who invented a religion and you can probably go see his grave just like Joseph Smith. Where is Jesus buried? Where was Moses buried? Funny the founders of these cults are almost mythical. Almost a fairytale. Instead of in a land far far away a long time ago Moses was somewhere around this place and 7 or 15000 years ago. Jesus isn't a fairytale because his story supposedly happened 2017 years ago in Israel. That's the only difference.

Can't you see a good martyr story when you hear one? If Jesus of Nazereth actually existed as a small cult leader then his story has been embellished over time greatly. If not, how do you accept the virgin birth story? Do you also believe in Angels, ghosts and demons. Really?

 

[hobelim]

If Jesus of Nazereth actually existed as a small cult leader then his story has been embellished over time greatly.

So.

Given the historical reality of the worldwide and long lasting effect that small cult leader of no account has had on "the nations" for good and evil, his claims of of having been given authority by God over life and death, to bless or to curse, according to the story that is, was not just hubris from a fairy tale character...

Do you also believe in Angels, ghosts and demons. Really?

Yes, really.


In scripture, angels and demons and all the wild beasts of the field, whether clean or unclean, are descriptive metaphors for ordinary people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential.


Do you not believe in scumbags, er, demons? really? Have you not been paying attention to politics?

Have you never been visited by an angel?

If you were looking for evidence of invisible beings you wouldn't know if one was standing right in front of you either striking you with blindness or setting your head on fire, would you.

 

[BreezeWood]

In scripture ... are descriptive metaphors for ordinary people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential.

that's the point, you keep referring to different books, characters and descriptive discrepancies meant for interpretation but have no physical material from the time for either verification or reference. the sole source for your information is a late 4th century book that itself has no reference for its material.

that 4th century corruption of the 1st century religion is long overdue for correction, how many more people will fall prey to its diabolical content before justice is restored.

 

[hobelim]

In scripture ... are descriptive metaphors for ordinary people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential.

that's the point, you keep referring to different books, characters and descriptive discrepancies meant for interpretation but have no physical material from the time for either verification or reference. the sole source for your information is a late 4th century book that itself has no reference for its material..

Thats not true at all. What the romans redacted for widespread publication in the fourth century was compiled from material that was written hundreds of years earlier that they could never comprehend without having the keys to understanding. Aside from that there exists volumes of material from the first century that sheds light on Jewish thought belief and expression based on the instruction in the Torah, not to mention the known historical context and volumes of commentaries on those events.

Knowing that Jesus lived during a time of brutal Roman oppression when there was no such thing as freedom of expression and people were killed and maimed on a daily basis for trivial reasons it should be obvious that what he was teaching to the oppressed was in a strange language, codified vernacular, that went over their superstitious and illiterate foreign oppressors heads long before anything was ever written down..

that 4th century corruption of the 1st century religion is long overdue for correction,

When a car breaks down do you abandon it at the junk yard and expect it to be returned to you in good running condition?

 

[sealybobo]

If Jesus of Nazereth actually existed as a small cult leader then his story has been embellished over time greatly.

So.

Given the historical reality of the worldwide and long lasting effect that small cult leader of no account has had on "the nations" for good and evil, his claims of of having been given authority by God over life and death, to bless or to curse, according to the story that is, was not just hubris from a fairy tale character...

Do you also believe in Angels, ghosts and demons. Really?

Yes, really.


In scripture, angels and demons and all the wild beasts of the field, whether clean or unclean, are descriptive metaphors for ordinary people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential.


Do you not believe in scumbags, er, demons? really? Have you not been paying attention to politics?

Have you never been visited by an angel?

If you were looking for evidence of invisible beings you wouldn't know if one was standing right in front of you either striking you with blindness or setting your head on fire, would you.

I was reading about the French Revolution. The French Revolution completely changed the social and political structure of France. It put an end to the French monarchy, feudalism, and took political power from the Catholic church.

Ok, so do you know the history of Christianity? I do. The Catholic Church is/was very corrupt. For thousands of years. That's a fact. So, knowing this history, why would anyone believe this religions Jesus stories?

This is how I know Christianity is pure bullshit. What you are asked to believe is unbelievable and a real god wouldn't make this the test for getting into heaven.