The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

yt: Jesus: Evidence, ancient historical sources
youtu.be...
Part I: Evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ by Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University. Dr. Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: 
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Part II examines evidence from the non-biblical sources of nineteen pagan writers that refer to Jesus Christ of the first century such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger. Also doucmented by Flavius Josephus, the greatest historian of the Jews

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Simon Greenleaf died in 1853.

I'd say his sources of research were extremely limited. Kind of the circular argument of proving the bible, by the bible.

I don't think this thread is about Jesus lessons.

a reply to: Annee

The professors work was solid and remains valid today.

Of course, Josh McDowell has even more evidence to add.

NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404970501&sr=1-1&keywords=NEW+EVIDENCE+THAT+DEMA NDS+A+VERDICT

77 FAQs ABOUT GOD AND THE BIBLE:

www.amazon.com...=la_B000APEQR8_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404970549&sr=1-4



It's an important issue related to the OP in the sense that JESUS DIED that each individual might have a RELATIONSHIP, DIRECTLY 1:1 WITH FATHER GOD.

And that's a major issue of the OP.

I hope you aren't planning to try and convince us next that Christianity doesn't have anything to do with Jesus.

BTW, IF all this talk about Jesus and Christianity is resulting in your breaking out in hives and nausea . . . I suppose you could scroll more quickly by the posts of those of us who have a RELATIONSHIP with HIM.

Or, perhaps to play it realllllly safe, you could try to find a different thread to risk your eyes on . . . maybe something like . . .

"The First 101 Hospitals Atheism Built In The Developing World" Oh, right didn't happen.

Maybe something like . . .

"Finding Meaning and Morals In Sterile Chance Plus Time" . . . oh, right. more futility.

Ahhhh welllll perhaps you could take some anti-nausea pills since you have such an attraction to such threads.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Only if you believe it.

He was an apologist. His argument is philosophical.

a reply to: Annee

He referenced far more than merely his own ideas.

I don't QUITE understand your ignoring his fitting references to tangible evidences.

Sigh.

All I see here is a witch hunt against Christians. Pure propaganda. If I remember when I get home from work, I'll contribute more to this thread, but I'll say this: I'm awestruck at the blatant agenda contained in this thread.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

It's an important issue related to the OP in the sense that JESUS DIED that each individual might have a RELATIONSHIP, DIRECTLY 1:1 WITH FATHER GOD.

You know I hear that phrase quite a lot when talking with certain Christians. The "Relationship with Jesus/God/Father" They are always so specific to use that exact word to but usually are very vague with the details.

If you would, explain to me what you mean by that. As detailed as possible too if you would. What do you mean by Relationship exactly??? Give examples too please. For example do you and Jesus go fishing together??? Does he come to your house and watch the game with you??? Is it like an actual 2 way conversation??? Just a voice in your head??? (Those are obviously kinda corny examples but you get what I'm saying.)

a reply to: xuenchen

Now, what about laws and language inserted in laws ?

And maybe any that have been challenged in court and struck down?

Delicate balance of the 1st Amendment indeed.

That's exactly the point.
If given enough power, they WILL change the laws - for at least as long as they are in power, until someone else comes along and challenges them. Brownback orchestrated changes in his state of Kansas which went terribly awry. Now he's being booted out. Should every state have to "try and err"? Maybe. But the entire country attempting to learn by "trial and error" - well, that's about where we are now.

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

These people are real. They are a minority group of very active Christians - who overtly intend to impose religious strictures (based on scriptures) upon the entire nation.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think Reid is a problem -- but David Barton sure does.

The NAR wanted Romney. Beck is also a Mormon, and one of the most rabid Right-Wingers.

There are all varieties of Christians in the organization -
New Apostolic Reformation Posts Archive

That ^^ is a handy-dandy link to many, many articles about who they are, what they're doing, and so forth and so on.

a reply to: NavyDoc

what I am against is the state coming in and forcing decisions on people with threat of prosecution by law.

Okay, then! You are also "against" this group gaining power.
If only you could see past the left/right thing...
if they get the power, THEY will be forcing decisions on people with thread of prosecution - and then will you understand that party doesn't matter?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Gingrich is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist.

Yes, and he's one of these people who want to impose religion on EVERYONE - via every aspect of our society.
First america - tomorrow the world! "Allahu Akbar!"

Get it?
Extremist religious groups want total control. THAT is the whole point.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I tolerate some dog turds in the yard because the value of the protection of the dog outweighs the unpleasant inconvenience of his turds. Westboro Baptist is an example of the turds we must tolerate, for example, to protect the pit bull that is the freedom of speech.

Now - imagine zealots like Westboro having control of the Congress, Courts, and Executive branches of the govt.
Still just a tolerable turd?

The Seven Mountain Dominionists really aren't that far from Westboro in their zeal. Westboro is juuussssst a little worse. For now. But the Dominionists have real power - and there are LOTS MORE of them than 25 crazy family members and hangers on.

Those of you who keep harping on Progressives and Liberals are focusing on the wrong thing for the purposes of this thread.

"Liberal" has two meanings, depending on context. In terms of big government platforms, it means allowing expansion of government, and spending. I do not want that.

In terms of legislating behavior - a "Liberal" is someone who does NOT want that. They want gays and pot-smokers, women, children, the disabled, people of color, the poor, etc. to be protected. They want equality...and to ensure that no one slips through those cracks...

allowing diversity, accepting it, and protecting everyone from fascist/ham-fisted control - we both want that.

The Dominionists are not just about "small government" - they are about imposing theocratic RULE on EVERYONE.

a reply to: Verum1quaere

No, that's not what I really mean.
We've already covered the "Satanist Global Agenda" in the thread.

BO XIAN beat you to it. We crossed that street, and now we are parsing who is who and what they want.

You seem to be fixated on equating all Christians to your own precoceived, presupposed ideals. For instance. You continually bring up Westboro baptists for your reference. Now i understand them to be unchristian in their actions but i certainly do not align myself with them. In fact, i have yet to see anyone defend them in any forum. I sense that the info that they are a cia cointel pro operation looks to be about the most accurate imo. But you seem fixated on them in order to use a broad brush stroke painting us to your predetermined color. Your use in order to bring a bright and flowery contrast to your own views reeks of mere propoganda. A better contrast for the westboro clan would be to equate what your beliefs and ideals are is to the modern day bolsheviks who use your type to front their true agenda as they prepare to slaughter 10's of millions americans just as they did to Ukranians and Russions 100 years ago.a reply to: BuzzyWigs

a reply to: manna2

You seem to be fixated on equating all Christians to your own precoceived, presupposed ideals.

NOPE.

Not ALL Christians. I'm specifically talking about The Dominionists. And what they are attempting to do is right out there, in your face, force everyone to be Evangelical Bible-thumpers.

I'm "continually" bringing up Westboro? It's the first mention I've made of them in this thread, I believe, and it was in response to NavyDoc's reference to them. They just happen to be a universally recognized problem child of the "Christian" faiths. MOST Christians do not think they (the WBC) are Christian at all. And MOST Christians are not Dominionists, either. And MOST Christians are uninterested in controlling everyone.

NOBODY likes Westboro, and they aren't running for power-positions anyway...they just provoke people so that they can sue for discrimination. My aim is to expose the NAR/Dominionists, so that NOBODY would vote for them, just like NOBODY would vote for anyone from Westboro to be in a position of authority.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Verum1quaere

No, that's not what I really mean.
We've already covered the "Satanist Global Agenda" in the thread.

BO XIAN beat you to it. We crossed that street, and now we are parsing who is who and what they want.

thats not true. That street is in front of us, not behind us. You just want to redirect traffic to suit your personal agenda. The globalist satan agenda, as you clearly define it, is right here, right now. We didnt cross a street. You are still standing in the middle of it pointing at the one way sign you placed in the dark alley you prescribed. You have yet to show why you paint with broad strokes and why you ignore the present danger in the onslought of traffic you are ignoring behind you while you attempt to divert others to drive single file in the directionyou are pointing. In fact, you standing in the street crying at everyone in motion is the cause of the congestion. Its not the dominionists we should fear. Its the idiots that equate everyone they dont like to being westboro baptists inevery other post

a reply to: manna2

You just want to redirect traffic to suit your personal agenda.

I'm trying to keep the thread ON TOPIC. The TOPIC is not the Satanic Cabal that BO is fixated upon.

It is about THE DOMINIONISTS. The Dominionists are NOT the "Satanic Globalist Illuminati Cabal" that some imagine. They are NOT "Agenda 21." We did cross that street, many pages back...

Its not the dominionists we should fear. Its the idiots that equate everyone they dont like to being westboro baptists inevery other post

Nice try. What are you, a middle-schooler? NO. You are a grown person. Don't call me an idiot. Try to calm down enough to read. Even BO managed that. (And also try to break up your walls of text into readable sections, please.)

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BO XIAN

Gingrich is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist.

Yes, and he's one of these people who want to impose religion on EVERYONE - via every aspect of our society.
First america - tomorrow the world! "Allahu Akbar!"

Get it?
Extremist religious groups want total control. THAT is the whole point.

westboro, now radical muslims...where do you think this broad brush strokes becomes too much?

originally posted by: manna2
Its not the dominionists we should fear.

Actually, I do fear anyone who wishes to impose a theocracy.

Granted, I do not think they are capable of doing it but they warrant my reproach for desiring to establish one.