Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by bakes0310, 9 Apr 2007.
Lots of people, your point?
This does make sense
1)Why would someone put themselves through this for a new religion 2000 years ago when it would be of what benefit?
2)It wasn't a new religion though, it was based on the fulfilment of prophecy and continuation of a religion in existence.
3)Is your thought process logical?
What would make you do this?
I can't argue with that. I will argue though that science rarely ever contains the full answer (Nor claims to). Lack of research and information, nothing else to it.
I imagine many medical specialists said X, Y and Z where impossible years ago. Like what always happens in science, understandings are refined and built upon.
You are, and I agree with you. As an agnostic I don't belief in God per say, I just believe that so far, as humans, orbiting one of a billion planets, of a billion star systems, we do not know the truth. None of us know, so in my opinion, worshipping something as ambigious as God is too vague for me to dedicate my life to, especially as there's a decent chance I've only got one life.
More evidence doesn't equal high-ground though, just because atheism is more probable than creationism doesn't make it 'fact over fiction' like some atheists would phrase.
With something as large and overwhelming and unmeasurably complex as the universe, I think keeping an open mind is the wisest thing to do.
Spot on mate.
This is exactly what Jesus did.
It was basically a new religion.
Its not a case of faith, thats not my argument. My argument is that if you research the crucifiction and the resurrection and the documents and facts surrounding it (other than the bible) you may be surprised at what you dig up.
There is contemporay evidence for the resurrection. You can take each argument against it, (the gardner was indeed a gardener, the body was stolen, it wasnt jesus it was lazarus) and tear each one of them up in easy strips, rather in much the same way Dawkins attempts it in his books. But then again Dawkins is scared of the Resurrection as he cant justify it or provide evidence to its contrary. Why not? As I said, its the pice de resistance for disproving christianity yet he side steps it. How odd!
Comparing the historical evidence of the resurrection is not stupid. In 1900 years time the wreck will not be there. Video footage, photographic evidence will be long degraded and will have been remastered so many times it will make it look like the Americans won the 2nd World War . An original written eye witness account will have degraded but alterations of it will exist as will accounts from different people all telling slightly different versions of the events of that fateful day. But whose account to believe? Shock Horror, the New Testament all over again.
Your picking a hole in a thread you cleary havent read. Read the few posts above this comment and you'll understand why I said it.
A new religion based on the old testament some 6000 years before it?
So I asked what would make you do this? Not what did Jesus do?
So if Jesus was this family guy, married to Mary (as you suggest), why on earth would he go through all this 2000 years ago?
Really not trying to cause offense but perhaps he was mentally ill?
lol, or a new age radical!
I was giving an analogy.
Jeus went preaching where he shouldn't have done and got his just rewards.
If I was to do it in Iran I would expect death pretty quickly.
I'm not sure how long his preachings went on for but after a while he must have known everybody was gunning for him.
I didn't say he was married to Mary (some people believe this though).
It doesn't really matter, married or not he bought the wrath of the Jewish Elders down on him.
No there isn't.
You made the claim for evidence now can you provide it?
Try readign the bible, it tells you why he went through it all and got crucified, and no it wasnt because he was mentally ill.
Why am I pretty sure he wasnt mentally ill? How many mentally ill people can you name from 200 years ago? Mentally ill people are not ones to be remembered, let alone follwed for a faith.
Does a tomb not count? Does that fact that the removal of a 1.5 tonne stone is not feasible when its dug in to a foot deep ditch? Does the fact that if people had stolen the body that they would have had to get past the Roman Guard first? Does it not count that if they had defeated the Roman Guard which in itself is unlikely that the guards in question would have been put to death by crucifiction but there is no mention of this in any census or BDM documentation postceeding the death of Jesus. Does it not count that over 600 people witnessed the same man that died on the cross, alive, AFTER the event documented by at least 4 different writers at different times, none of whom knew each other yet each of which allocates a similar number of eye witnesses?
I could go on. Just because I dont have or cant see the physical remains of Jesus 2000 years after the event is no basis for denying the existence and potential resurrection of such a man.
Of course, this would all ultaimtely depend on the Bible being true.
I am reading the bible. I have a rough idea why he done what he did, doesn't change the fact he could of been deluded by a mental illness.
Bit of a silly comparsion you've made there about remembering a metally ill person from 200 years ago. He managed to convince a lot of people about his beliefs. So? That also doesn't change the fact he could of been mentally ill.
If I wrote more beautiful poetry than Shakespeare but I was mad as a tree, would I not be remembered? Of course I would.
So you don't have any evidence to back up your claim of contempory evidence. Why am I not surprised by this turn of events.
Quoting individual snippets from the NT as if they were independant from each other in the validity of their source documentation is dishonest.
The fact that the gospels tell roughly similar stories is not indicitive of proof, merely that they were selected cos of their similarities. Though even though the evidence is pretty conclusive that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as the foundation of their work, merely adding to that gospel, material that conveyed the message that they wanted to tell.
Then there is the fact that even though they originate from the same source, they differ wildly in certain important details, such as last words, who found the empty tomb, who else saw the risen christ etc.
Its interesting that Pauls letters which predate the gospels and were written at a time when JC contempories still lived do not refer to a physical resurrection but to a spiritual one and he does not use Judas as an example of a betrayor in his lectures even when to do so would seem a natural inclusion, if of course at that time Judas was thought of as the betrayor and this isn't a later invention, btw how did Judas die?
A Christain told me he commited suicide.
Separate names with a comma.