Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
To those who began with faith in him first, know him existing as a fact today. Something that you will never understand with your mismatched biases always getting in the way.

I think you misunderstand the difference between faith (ie. belief) and fact. Fact is never based on belief. Fact is based on testable evidence only.

Everything is a belief only, based on empirical evidence. I have seen more empirical evidence that Christ lived and was resurrected than not, so that establishes the basis for my belief. You of course will see this as faulty and wrong, only because you WISH it is not true, and use only that which helps your belief that he never even existed, or wasn't that which he said he was.. I on the other hand, never wished it to be true, but only sought it out for whatever it was, and from my personal experiences in seeking Christ, have found him to be real and true, just as the Bible says he was, and is.
I gave it the benefit of the doubt when I was baptized at age 12 in a Christian church, and I never asked for proof, but proof did come one day when Christ personally brought my spirit to a place and spoke to me that he was not too happy with the way I was going, and although I already knew he was real and actually still alive, and did not require any substantiating proof that was, I received it anyway. But that being proven to me was not why I saw him and spoke to him, because I already knew he was real, because faith brings truth to those who believe by faith first.

Because of all of this, I do not need to prove anything to you or anyone else, because with Christ it is a singularly personal experiment of faith alone that begins one's own walk in life towards a destiny away from worldly fate.

It is a choice, and it has nothing to do with utilizing testable evidence, because testable evidence is solely limited to material things alone, and Christian faith is not based on the material world, but upon things of the spirit, as far as salvation is concerned.
I have seen evidence that spirits are real and exist in some other dimension or reality apart from this one, but still connected, or able to interact with this one, so even that corroborates the reality of a spirit dimension to me, and reinforces the truth of all the other so called faith based things I have seen, even though I did not require proof they exist, because of having a relationship with Christ, and seeking to know more of him through continued faith. He knows when someone loves him and wants to live like he wants them to live, because they choose it over the worldly way, which only leads to spiritual ruin.

Using only things that are absolutely provable, do nothing to improve spiritual matters in people. It takes absolute neutrality and honesty to truly discover the truth about if Christ is real or just imagination, and from my experiences in life, I have found him to be legit and true.

This will seem foolish to some, but only because they have no desire to see the things they can't see using only physical and material senses. Just like how science says there is no life in the universe besides the planet earth, until it is proven by hard evidence. But actual life out there doesn't care about this earthly requirement for it to exist, so it exists out there anyway.

When a person has a bias towards something, they will always be able to show whatever it is that they need in order to believe it.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Try his most famous book. «Adversus Haereses» or «Against Heresies».

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You believe in, and believe to have a relationship with, a celestial being who dwells in an ethereal realm. This being is said to be "The Word" of God, in which God spoke all of creation into existence. He is the Alpha and the Omega, always was and always will be.

You belief in this "Christ" being is completely separate from historical research into a real life, flesh and blood, fully human man.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
To those who began with faith in him first, know him existing as a fact today. Something that you will never understand with your mismatched biases always getting in the way.

I think you misunderstand the difference between faith (ie. belief) and fact. Fact is never based on belief. Fact is based on testable evidence only.

Everything is a belief only, based on empirical evidence. I have seen more empirical evidence that Christ lived and was resurrected than not, so that establishes the basis for my belief. You of course will see this as faulty and wrong, only because you WISH it is not true, and use only that which helps your belief that he never even existed, or wasn't that which he said he was.. .

Where is this empirical evidence? Please state this testable evidence so that we can examine it.

On the contrary, I wish hobbits were real and lived in the Shire. Yet I don't believe it nor falsely claim there is empirical evidence proving it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't know what empirical evidence you have based your stance from but I have to ask if that empirical evidence was shown to you to be wrong would you re-evaulate your belief if the answer is no then why.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Damn well said, I do concur !

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

Like I said in another thread, it cool and acceptable to mock and tear down Christianity at this time.

Or any time for that matter about any tale of what happened at any time in history be it biblical or not, with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Always open season to study, search, research then begin to dig in scientifically, attempting to prove or disprove. In this case, it can't be proven...none of that stuff can.

It's like the story of Moses parting the Red Sea for the Jews who were supposedly slaves for crying out loud...really? Parting a sea? Me thinks not. Besides, the Egyptians were pretty good at record keeping and not one account of that event can or has been found anywhere in Egypt. Anywhere!

I even spent time over there searching for something...anything that says "maybe it was possible", even though I know it's physically impossible. But alas, not a single shred of evidence anywhere as of today's date. Nothing...nada...zilch...ZERO.

Newsweek nowadays is more like the Enquirer...."Enquiring minds want to know", they say?

Yeah, but I want the truth

OP asked for reliable historical accounts of Jesus
and that's what I've provided him here-in. Even
admited by Anthony Flew and Bart Erhman. The
" State of the art " of atheist Biblical critics.
Soooo.......

a reply to: randyvs

a reply to: windword

Using all mystery religions that worshipped " The Watchers "
As they pre-emptively mock the coming savior? And the Doctor
and you Wind are completely missing that. So much for what he
thinks and you want to believe or disbelieve. The difference
between us is you want to deny a truth and the want makes
that easy. For me I wanted the absolute truth no matter what.
And nothing has come any where close to changing my mind.
Not one thing I've ever heard fits so precisely. But your ways
to disbelief, I imagine aren't that comforting. Unless you fail
to see the importance of your responsibility to yourself to be
correct in the whole matter of you after death. You just have
to realise you aren't intelligent enough to have it all figured out
and there has to be someone who is and does. You're guy isn't
refuting anything I've posted.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't know what empirical evidence you have based your stance from but I have to ask if that empirical evidence was shown to you to be wrong would you re-evaluate your belief if the answer is no then why.

How can one unsee the truth, once one has seen it?

What you said above shows the folly in trusting anything anyways to empirical evidence. Knowledge about Christ can't truly be known by using empirical evidence (alone), and that is exactly how it is written. "He who believes by faith will receive the gift of life"

Empirical evidence is faulty to begin with if you can believe something because of it one day, and then the next be shown some other empirical evidence that refutes that, which makes you change your belief.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Whoa now slow your horses. You are the one who brought up empirical evidence and said it established the basis of your belief. You are the one who assigned the value of empirical evidence.


If empirical evidence is your basis for your belief (your words and claim) then that seems like it would be pretty important.No?

So I am trying to understand on one hand it is the basis of your belief but in the next post from you, you say empirical evidence is faulty.

Can you see how your message would come off as confusing at the very least.

I guess you are saying your belief is about faith not evidence correct me if I am wrong there. So I will have to ask how you define faith because I don't want to assume to know your mind.

a reply to: randyvs

Using all mystery religions that worshipped " The Watchers "
As they pre-emptively mock the coming savior? And the Doctor
and you Wind are completely missing that.

I guess you completely missed the part about how there already was a Jewish "LOGOS" named Jesus, before Jesus was given the title by John. Philo was a Jew who lived during the same time period that Jesus would have lived.

Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates "Logos". This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools.

The Logos is also designated as "high priest", in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men

Zechariah 3
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you."

Philo's "High Preist's" name was Yoshua, Jesus.

You're guy isn't refuting anything I've posted.

You haven't refuted anything I've posted.

But your ways
to disbelief, I imagine aren't that comforting. Unless you fail
to see the importance of your responsibility to yourself to be
correct in the whole matter of you after death.

I believe in reincarnation.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You seem to really like switching things around to suit your argument, but it WASN'T me who first said anything about empirical evidence.

I said that the evidence in historical documents, which is all testimony, and even sworn testimony by the letters of the new testament, is the evidence I see as proving the story of Jesus because I believe those that wrote it were telling the truth. Testimony is empirical evidence if you see it as true, but Windword or you was the one that put "empirical" in the mix first, not me.

But because of employing faith, (which is the rule to be given salvation), have learned so much more than just any hard evidence would ever teach, since physical things can't teach you about the ways of Christ. Only having an open heart, mind, and spirit to the nature and ways of God can a person learn what is important and true. Discernment can then be a part of living that is a gift, which has a power that doesn't come from the physical and material world.

Science and Euclidean measuring systems are not going to teach you or help you understand all of the things of a higher nature, and it can't even measure love or kindness or any other virtue.

Empirical evidence only goes so far and shows enough to me that Jesus did do the things as stated in the NT, because I choose to believe and give the benefit of belief in those who said all that they said in that big book, but that is where empirical evidence stops, and faith begins. Your view tells you to stop right there and only consider the physical things left to us by history, and not to consider faith as a continuance from there, and so left with only that, you have stopped, and since you have used that evidence to say it isn't good enough, and are now claiming it is all unprovable nonsense, and even that Jesus is just a fairytale.

Those who choose to believe the teachings in the NT don't stop there, but continue on using faith to believe that it was all true. And thus, continue learning in spirit and through fellowship with other believers, and many who do this have learned that their pursuits are not in vain, and have had their own experiences that prove to each individual, that it is really true and Christ is quite real and alive to this day.

I said empirical evidence is faulty only because it is limited by what you can physically test and measure, that is what I meant. Having faith in God and Christ imposes no limits on what can be revealed to one who trusts in their faith, especially after it has been employed, and Christ has given gifts to your spirit for being trusting in him. This happens to people. Can they prove it? No. It is an individual choice to use faith, and any future "proof" you receive, is meant just for you alone. Those are the rules of faith in Christ, from my experiences.

This is pretty much all I can tell anyone.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You seem to really like switching things around to suit your argument, but it WASN'T me who first said anything about empirical evidence.

I have no idea if you were the first to bring up empirical evidence but it was you who stated "Everything is a belief only, based on empirical evidence. I have seen more empirical evidence that Christ lived and was resurrected than not, so that establishes the basis for my belief." when replying to tangerine which is why I asked you questions about it. I can assure you it wasn't I that brought it up because I would never claim late century and beyond stories which have been written then re-written to be empirical evidence of anything other than a story.

Who knows how many liberties have been taken with those stories we do know since the first ones were recorded there have been several liberties taken throughout history to change them, at least we do from the earliest manuscripts known to the point we are at today because we can compare them.

So knowing that the stories have been tampered with/changed to the current form we have today in everymans bible I would ask what do you personally go by. Do you trust your everymans bible or do you look to see what the earliest manuscripts said. If you go by the current everymans bible then why?

But because of employing faith, (which is the rule to be given salvation), have learned so much more than just any hard evidence would ever teach, since physical things can't teach you about the ways of Christ. Only having an open heart, mind, and spirit to the nature and ways of God can a person learn what is important and true. Discernment can then be a part of living that is a gift, which has a power that doesn't come from the physical and material world.

I guess that is fine but I asked what your definition of faith is. I have found that what I consider as faith may not be what others consider faith to be so can you please explain what your definition of faith is?

I don't want to assume what your understanding of the definition may be. I don't want to assume things about you or make any unfounded accusations. I could say you do this or you do that I could even claim to know what it is you believe but I would be wrong in doing so because I dont know you. I can only go on what you have said or claimed about yourself.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Try his most famous book. «Adversus Haereses» or «Against Heresies».

Apparently you have never read Irenaeus.

If you had you would know "Against Heresies" isn't a book, it's a volume of books.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Faith to me is a level of trust you have that something is true or untrue. If I trust implicitly that something is true because of one reason or another, that others knew them to be honest and so trusted them like a brother, then I have faith in them as being trustworthy and can depend on their word being true, intelligent, and reliable.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Grimpachi

Faith to me is a level of trust you have that something is true or untrue. If I trust implicitly that something is true because of one reason or another, that others knew them to be honest and so trusted them like a brother, then I have faith in them as being trustworthy and can depend on their word being true, intelligent, and reliable.

Fine. You've defined faith. Now where's the empirical evidence (ie. testable evidence)?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Faith to me is a level of trust you have that something is true or untrue.

OK so let me see if I understand you correctly.

Faith is trust in something to be true or not true?

I am glad I asked because the way I would define faith is far different from how you define faith.

If I trust implicitly that something is true because of one reason or another, that others knew them to be honest and so trusted them like a brother, then I have faith in them as being trustworthy and can depend on their word being true, intelligent, and reliable.

Now with that I am not sure if you are talking about something or someone however you mentioned that you had reason to have trust in that something or someone. Would that reason be based off of some type of evidence. Like if it is a person you trust would that be because in past experience with them they have proved that they are truthful and trustworthy? I assume you don't instantly trust every person you meet for the first time.

You have trust and faith in freezer being cold because every time you have checked it before it was cold in other words you had evidence and experience in it working correctly before.

So because I am trying to get your definition of faith would I be correct in saying based off of what you said -

Faith is trust based off of reasons derived from some sort of evidence which could be prior experience?

As you said things you implicitly trust you have had one reason or another as you said that gave you reason to trust it.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't know what empirical evidence you have based your stance from but I have to ask if that empirical evidence was shown to you to be wrong would you re-evaluate your belief if the answer is no then why.

How can one unsee the truth, once one has seen it?

What you said above shows the folly in trusting anything anyways to empirical evidence. Knowledge about Christ can't truly be known by using empirical evidence (alone), and that is exactly how it is written. "He who believes by faith will receive the gift of life"

Empirical evidence is faulty to begin with if you can believe something because of it one day, and then the next be shown some other empirical evidence that refutes that, which makes you change your belief.

So basically you got the warm and fuzzies in multiple occasions while praying or thinking about the Christian god. If you were to do the same while thinking about Star Wars you wouldn't start believing in the force. I'm not saying it's bad or evil. But you gotta admit you prob don't allow said warm and fuzzies to controle your beliefs in any other aspect of your life. Saying "Jesus revealed the TRUTH to me". Is exactly as much sense to a non Christian as "budda told me" or Allah told me " or "Santa told me" would be to you. If someone told you that you would think they were silly.


The funniest part to me is the inability to see yourself in the acts of other religions. To most Christians it's laughable that some one could be a Mormon or a scientologist. When they get the same warm and fuzzies you get while praying. They have precisely the same evidence you have. I just never understood the ability to just know your speacial and the whole world is wrong but you....