One could infer the answer no, quite easily, given that the Bible goes to great lengths to make it clear that he was perfect and without sin.
DAIR said:
Now you're just being facetious.
Dinosaurs are not real :(
- Thread starter stoke1863
- Start date
One could infer the answer no, quite easily, given that the Bible goes to great lengths to make it clear that he was perfect and without sin.
Now you're just being facetious.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was merely saying its not in the Bible, if you believe that the Bible is legit and not written by some homeless dude trying to make some money lol
So you're telling me (and Christians actually believe) that all this kid for his entire life was make tables and chairs and bookcases etc.... not drink/drugs/alochol, despite the fact he had a thing with Mary Magdalene who (apparently) had a child from Jesus
Yes, people believe that.
Can you also tell me when it became OK to use the Da Vinci Code as our source for argument?
As for the garden of Eden point... I'm struggling to argue the case either way, given that I think the Genesis creation account is pretty much allegorical. As such, it's hard for me to argue the case for there being limited literality (not a word, apparently, but it should be) there.
You mean smug?
Erm wut? I honestly don't have a clue what you're asking. I think you're trolling me.
The academic concensus amongst the vast majority Historians and Scholars is that the histriocity of Jesus is not in question as an historical figure....even rabid critics like Richard Dawkins accept that Jesus probably existed.
It cetainly is not a fact that Jesus was an accepted fictional character such as Harry Potter and to describe him so is disingenuous and not accepted by historians.
There is a huge difference between acceptance of the historicity of Jesus and the acceptance of the histriocity of The Christ, something that many biased critics intentionally gloss over when discussing this.
That Jesus was a historical figure is accepted academically....that The Christ was a historical figure is not...
Pontius Pilate for example had no extent proof of his existence, until they found the Pilate Stone in the 1960s...does that mean he didn't exist prior to 1961?
I don't have the time to give to discussing this at length at the moment but the wiki page and Historical Jesus page will give you a basic outline as to the current consensus among Historians.
Also you must consider the difference in methodolgy between historians of different era's, a modern historian has eyewitness contemporary accounts and such, whereas the ancient historian employs a different methodology, and not only to Jesus but to all historical figures....the wiki links will illustrate this.
It cetainly is not a fact that Jesus was an accepted fictional character such as Harry Potter and to describe him so is disingenuous and not accepted by historians.
There is a huge difference between acceptance of the historicity of Jesus and the acceptance of the histriocity of The Christ, something that many biased critics intentionally gloss over when discussing this.
That Jesus was a historical figure is accepted academically....that The Christ was a historical figure is not...
Pontius Pilate for example had no extent proof of his existence, until they found the Pilate Stone in the 1960s...does that mean he didn't exist prior to 1961?
I don't have the time to give to discussing this at length at the moment but the wiki page and Historical Jesus page will give you a basic outline as to the current consensus among Historians.
Also you must consider the difference in methodolgy between historians of different era's, a modern historian has eyewitness contemporary accounts and such, whereas the ancient historian employs a different methodology, and not only to Jesus but to all historical figures....the wiki links will illustrate this.
Last edited:
Forgive me. I have a thing abour religion.
Jesus being perfect and without sin..... Bible makes him out to be pretty far up his own "you know what"..
He was God. I think we can forgive (HA!) him that.
And I'm not even sure how you would conclude that Jesus was "arrogant" from the Bible. I'd like you to find me some verses that you think show him as such.
You're not very good at this.
I thought it was funny
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
Being facetious is probably the most appropriate behaviour given the audacity and the ***p that religions spread.
Religions don't spread audacity, sourceforge do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
Very funny.
The thing that's really getting to me, and this isn't meant as an insult (who am I to insult organised religion), but I really don't understand anyone's logic when they believe in a god. And how is it that you monotheists explain the multitude of gods apparently in existence?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
When I ask that, I'm assuming you're a christian. Judging from your posts though I get the feeling that you may not believe in a specific god held by religion but maybe just a higher power...
Hindus believe in god(s).
Budhism is an agnostic religion based primarily on the teachings and philosophies from Budha. Asian religions are an entirely different concept and not comparable to the monotheistic religions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
All religions are essentially athiest because they denounce and deny the existence of other gods. A very strange practice in my opinion...they can't all be right.
Oh, so other people can be facetious about religion, but I can't be facetious about them being facetious about religion? AWESOME.
dirtychinchilla said:
The logic stems different axioms. I take it as axiomatic that the existence of God is possible, and I see evidence of that from which I logically conclude that God exists. Others regard it as axiomatic that God can not possibly exist, and they see evidence that fits that. I'm honestly inclined to say that this sort of belief goes beyond logic, because it is based on such fundamental assumptions.
As for multiple religions... Well, people have always interpreted things differently. It doesn't bother me that there's plenty of religions out there, even if I do nevertheless believe that mine is the true one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
I was referring to the existence of multiple gods..
I get what you mean about the potential for the existence of a god, but personally it doesn't sway me.
I get what you mean about the potential for the existence of a god, but personally it doesn't sway me.
Somewhat true, but if they believe in their own god, then they cant be atheist.
Jesus was not god, nor the son of god.
Source: the Quran.