why do we blank out the word god?

[Sp!ke]

he has made an appearance, Jesus.

You met him, shaked his hand, washed his feet? No. You are taking the words of the bible as the truth, you have no hard evidence. No one has

If we take the opinion that Jesus did exist, again we cannot prove he was the son of God or even the son of a god.

The FSM has made an appearance according to the written word, and I don't believe in that either?

~S

 

[semi-pro waster]

he has made an appearance, Jesus.

To baldly state that as proof assumes that he was indeed the son of God, about the best that can be said is that a man named Jesus lived ~2000 years ago. That isn't quite the same thing as incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the son of God and could perform miracles.

 

[yantorsen]

well theres nothing to say that they didnt live within walking distance, especially as that would have been a few weeks, as it took him a while to build the boat (acording to the bible)

it's quite likely that life forms hadn't migrated all over the world, as the story is based near the start of time, or atleast the start of earth time.

obviously i cannot say for certain any of the above, nor can you be certain that it didnt happen.

 

[yantorsen]

To baldly state that as proof assumes that he was indeed the son of God, about the best that can be said is that a man named Jesus lived ~2000 years ago. That isn't quite the same thing as incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the son of God and could perform miracles.

plenty of witnesses to mircales he did, so he was atleast a doctor was was ahead of his time?

plus the ressurection, fairly miraculous if you ask me. and there is also plenty of witness acounts to that.

infact theres even Roman acounts of the crucifiction and all that happened.

 

[semi-pro waster]

plenty of witnesses to mircales he did, so he was atleast a doctor was was ahead of his time?

plus the ressurection, fairly miraculous if you ask me. and there is also plenty of witness acounts to that.

infact theres even Roman acounts of the crucifiction and all that happened.

Perhaps Jesus was a doctor or some kind of faith healer (if you'll pardon the pun), that doesn't mean that what he did were miracles in the accepted sense of the word. Like you say he might simply have been ahead of his time or possibly just had a better publicist than the rest of the doctors of that era.

The Resurrection - there are recorded instances of people being pronounced dead but waking up in the morgue and these mistakes occur even with current understanding of medicine and we appear to have already agreed that doctors of 2000 years ago weren't entirely tip-top so I'm quite prepared to believe that mistakes could happen then as well.

I believe that the Romans crucified more than a couple of people so for them to have records of their doing so isn't wholly surprising to me.

I'm not trying to knock your faith, no matter how this may sound, as I've said plenty of times believe in what you want and allow others the same freedom. However what you are offering is merely a form of evidence, it isn't unquestionable proof, you can believe it as proof absolute and I have no issue with it but that doesn't mean everyone else will or even should do the same.

 

[Nitefly]

plenty of witnesses to mircales he did, so he was atleast a doctor was was ahead of his time?

plus the ressurection, fairly miraculous if you ask me. and there is also plenty of witness acounts to that.

infact theres even Roman acounts of the crucifiction and all that happened.

I can fly, I have loads of witnesses too. If you want I can send you an email of what they said!

 

[yantorsen]

Perhaps Jesus was a doctor or some kind of faith healer (if you'll pardon the pun), that doesn't mean that what he did were miracles in the accepted sense of the word. Like you say he might simply have been ahead of his time or possibly just had a better publicist than the rest of the doctors of that era.

The Resurrection - there are recorded instances of people being pronounced dead but waking up in the morgue and these mistakes occur even with current understanding of medicine and we appear to have already agreed that doctors of 2000 years ago weren't entirely tip-top so I'm quite prepared to believe that mistakes could happen then as well.

I believe that the Romans crucified more than a couple of people so for them to have records of their doing so isn't wholly surprising to me.

I'm not trying to knock your faith, no matter how this may sound, as I've said plenty of times believe in what you want and allow others the same freedom. However what you are offering is merely a form of evidence, it isn't unquestionable proof, you can believe it as proof absolute and I have no issue with it but that doesn't mean everyone else will or even should do the same.

I NEVER said this was proof, infact i stated that proof doesnt exsist outside maths.

I said that there are personal roman acounts of the crucifiction.

and i was talking about the reserection of christ, not of people he healed etc.

 

[[PTG]shogun]

there have been many accounts of people pronounced dead but whose body was merly in an unusual stae of shock with v. low BP and pulse, undetectable to human senses, 3 mins without air to the brain before damage occurs, 4 mins to death of brain tissue is permanent but with the blood still flowing (be it unusualy slowly) the time can be increased with leaves the body open to resorete normal patterns.

 

[yantorsen]

there have been many accounts of people pronounced dead but whose body was merly in an unusual stae of shock with v. low BP and pulse, undetectable to human senses, 3 mins without air to the brain before damage occurs, 4 mins to death of brain tissue is permanent but with the blood still flowing (be it unusualy slowly) the time can be increased with leaves the body open to resorete normal patterns.

Jesus had very little blood left in him if at all, he would have bled to death if he had not died before that point.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I NEVER said this was proof, infact i stated that proof doesnt exsist outside maths.

I said that there are personal roman acounts of the crucifiction.

and i was talking about the reserection of christ, not of people he healed etc.

You quite definitely did, at the very mimimum you implied that Jesus' existence is proof of God. It isn't, it is evidence that a man called Jesus lived at roughly the correct time period.

I'm not debating whether there are Roman accounts of the Crucifiction, I'm entirely sure there are.

Since no one can prove beyond doubt that God exists (until he makes an appearance I suppose) how is it rational?

he has made an appearance, Jesus.

 

[yantorsen]

You quite definitely did, at the very mimimum you implied that Jesus' existence is proof of God. It isn't, it is evidence that a man called Jesus lived at roughly the correct time period.

I'm not debating whether there are Roman accounts of the Crucifiction, I'm entirely sure there are.

you obviously dont know the whole crucifiction line of events then. If you take that as the truth (personal roman acounts of what happened), then it is clear that Jesus was atleast supernatural.

and i said it prooves it for me, proof, meaning beyond reasonable doubt, not it's "propper" meaning if you like. so maybe i used the wrong word. I'm not english, forgive me.

 

[Nitefly]

^ nice post count

 

[Gilly]

you obviously dont know the whole crucifiction line of events then. If you take that as the truth (personal roman acounts of what happened), then it is clear that Jesus was atleast supernatural.

No it isn't. It isn't clear he was supernatural, all that is relatively clear is that a person going by the name of Jesus lived at around the right time period. That is it.

I have no doubt that someone called Jesus lived. That isn't the issue.

 

[Jet]

Which is more likely?

The world was made by God, Adam and Eve (well Eve to be fair) wrecked everything for mankind, Noah made an ark with 2 of every species (even those that we, as 6 billion people, have still not discovered), Jesus performed miracles, came back from the dead, etc, etc.

Or some blokes in the middle east wrote some stories.

Occam's razor.

 

[yantorsen]

No it isn't. It isn't clear he was supernatural, all that is relatively clear is that a person going by the name of Jesus lived at around the right time period. That is it.

I have no doubt that someone called Jesus lived. That isn't the issue.

if he was nothing special why would lots of different people create various pieces of litriture about him then?

 

[Monkeynut]

Also, why call him Jesus? It's like calling someone Joe or John, it could have been a common name at the time.

It's not what's in the Bible that's important, it's what is NOT in it.

yantorsen, why do nvidia make graphics cards?

 

[yantorsen]

Also, why call him Jesus? It's like calling someone Joe or John, it could have been a common name at the time.

It's not what's in the Bible that's important, it's what is NOT in it.

and what isn't in it?

Jesus, means Saviour or salvation in greek, and he wouldnt of been called Jesus at the time, but the Hebrew equivelant. Yeshua.

 

[Monkeynut]

Which was Judas I think? Wasn't that the name of one of his disciples?
The Church controlled what went into it, they had hundereds of years exculsive to it, they could have only put in what they wanted.

And I'm not trying to offend anyone, just put my views across.

 

[yantorsen]

Which was Judas I think? Wasn't that the name of one of his disciples?
The Church controlled what went into it, they had hundereds of years exculsive to it, they could have only put in what they wanted.

And I'm not trying to offend anyone, just put my views across.

Yeshua = Jesus.

which "church"? until it was compiled it was under the respective rights of whoever wrote the various parts of the bible. the parts not included, were just not put in the main book, they were not destryoed or even deemed bad, and they are easily available.

 

[Monkeynut]

...the ones we know about.