It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Jesus survived, would Christianity?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
here we go with the argument that Christians ursurped pagen religions and have nothing original about them. While Pagens and neopagens (that is wiccans) are the true original source.

FYI Wicca didn't existed until shortly after 1940, and revitalised the pagen movment once Britan repealed the ban on witchcraft. Thus is why it is called neopagen.

THe idea of the holy trinity has been around since the dawn of history. And it is more likely that other religions copied Judeo-chrisitan practices to fit in and be more accptable to other cultures.

Christmas was created in place of a pagen sun-God festival, yet really has no connection to the festival except for the date. Same with easter which is thought of to have pagen origins only when you look at the symbols used, or mistranslate words and link them to pagen Gods.

Regardless the "My religion came first" argument can be easily mis-interpeted, and muddled that it really has no meaning or relevance and only severse to divide people further.

Christianity relies on Faith, on beliving what cannot be proven. Thus we refer to Doubting Thomas

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


A newborn loves his parents, but you can't PROVE it. Yet if you ask any new parent they know thier child loves them. Thus Chrisitans even without proof love thier God, and know God loves them


Well you got most of that wrong. First calling Wicca neopagan is completly wrong. Wicca is a revised version of Wicce pronounced weechee. This is name translates to the wise ones. At one time it was wiccecraft, pronounced weecheecraft, then it became known as Witchcraft. Witchcraft originally came from the Indu Valley nearly 30,000 years ago. Nothing new about that hey friend?

Christmas has no connection to the festival of Yule?!?!? Are you kidding? The rebirth of the God has everything to do with us and nothing to do with Christ! You burn the Yule log, bringing in an evergreen to your home is a promise of spring. Old Nick brings you presents. Green and red colors, all of this is Pagan. You people changed the name Old Nick to Saint Nick and called our Old Nick the devil!! lol

Your monotheisic religion was put in place to control peoples thoughts and make us seperate from the Devine. God is in everything. Go learn the history of your religion, the real history.

Dont burn any Witches, Wicce or Wicca along the way!! Bahahahaha!!




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
nice try, but please don't spew such dis-information to protray something it is not


Modern Wicca began in England in 1939, when Gerald Gardner was initiated into a traditional British coven by Dorothy Clutterbuck (Old Dorothy). He later broke the coven's seal of secrecy and published books about the beliefs and practices of British Wiccans, because he feared the religion would die out. This began what continues to be a groundswell of people converting to Wicca.

Debate currently rages over whether Wicca is a new religion or the oldest of all religions. Some say that Wicca has been practiced continuously in Europe at least sinnce the Ice Age. they cite paleolithic carvings of female figures, such as the Venus of Willendorf, as evidnce of Goddess worship having been the origin of all religions. Others say, Wicca is a neo-pagan faith, a 20th century construct.



In Old English, wicca meant necromancer or male witch. Some contend that the term wicca is related to Old English witan, meaning wise man or counselor, but this is widely rejected by language scholars as false etymology. Nonetheless, Wicca is often called the "Craft of the wise" as a result of this misconception.It appears that the word may be untraceable beyond the Old English period. Derivation from the Indo-European roots 'wic' or 'weik' is seemingly incorrect by phonological understanding.


also


Professor Jeffrey Russell, in his book A History of Witchcraft (Thames & Hudson, London, 1980). Professor Russell rejects any connection with the Old English word witan, meaning to know, as he also does with the Old English wican, to bend. In his opinion, the real origin comes from the Indo-European word weik, which has a general connection with religion and magic. From this very ancient root-word came in turn, among other things, a word wikk, meaning magic and sorcery, and this eventually produced the Old English wicca, a male witch, wicce, a female witch, and the verb wiccian, to bewitch or work witchcraft.


In his biography, Gerald Gardner: Witch, it describes his initiation in "Old Dorothy's" house, and says, 'It was half way through when the word Wica was first mentioned: "and I then knew that that which I had thought burnt out hundreds of years ago still survived."' It will be seen that at this time Gerald didn't even know how to spell the word. Its correct spelling is as above. Nor, unfortunately, does this account state in what context the word was used. It might have been that Old Dorothy's coven was simply proclaiming Gerald a male witch, in which case this would have been an accurate use of the word.

There is theory is that this idea originated from his reading of a book which he possessed, An Encyclopedia of Occultism by Lewis Spence. This very valuable work of reference first appeared in 1920, according to the mention of it in the bibliography at the end of Gerald's book, Witchcraft Today. It has recently been re-issued by Bracken Books under the title of The Encyclopedia of the Occult. The entry referring to witchcraft begins: "Witchcraft: (from Saxon Wicca, a contraction of witega, a prophet or sorcerer)." This could have been read and misunderstood to mean that "Wicca" meant witchcraft, and this misconception has been carried on through the ranks of modern witches ever since.

I never use a Yule log, mainly becasue i dont have a fire place. I dont use evergreen's anymore but an artifical tree becasue it is cleaner, and cheaper. Red is the color of blood, which Jesus shed for me, Green is the color of life which is a symbol of the holy spirit.

This is what the problem is, you attribute your definitions to pagen symbols that people use for complelty differant reasons, and sometimes noting more symbolic then family tradition.

The origin of most Christmas customs is shrouded in obscurity. Decorated trees were part of the religious symbolism of northern Europe in pre-Christian times. Some stories trace the change from a pagan to Christian symbolism for decorated trees to the early missionary Winfried. The tree, of course, had frequently been used as a symbol of life already in the Bible so this was an easy transition. Evergreens were especially suitable for this purpose.

One often reads that the pope placed Christmas on December 25 to replace the pagan mid-winter festival, but there really is little evidence to support this claim. The early church fathers report several conflicting date for Christ's birth including dates in November and May as well as the more accepted dates, December 25 and January 6. In the early church January 6 gained greater acceptance in the East and December 25 in the West. The church father Hippolytus of Rome, who lived in the early 200s, provides the first record we have of the December 25 date. December 25 seems to have become the established date at Rome by the mid-300s. In the late 300s Chrysostum, who lived in the East, argued for the date of December 25 on the basis of a careful analysis of the chronological data concerning Luke 1. His comments make it clear that although this date was fairly new in the East, it was long established in the West.

The tradition of a mid-winter birth is strongly supported in tradition. Previously existing mid-winter festivals may have influenced the church in its choice of a specific day, but it is just as likely that God placed Christ's birth at midwinter, the time when the light returned. All of the festivals of Israel were determined by the astronomical turning points of the year. That is why Easter is tied to the coming of spring. God placed the Passover and therefore also Easter at the coming of spring. The Jewish festival of lights, Hannukah, was already on the 25th of the midwinter month at the time of Jesus. This was certainly an appropriate date for the coming of the Light of the World.

We do not know the date of Christ's birth with certainty, but there is little to support the notion that the date is simply the appropriation of a heathen festival. Questions of biblical dating are discussed in detail in Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Jack Finegan.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I am really sorry you have such a problem with the word Wicca. I always thought Geral Gardner was just a dirty old man. Personaly I practice Witchcraft that was started in the Undu Valley 30,000 years ago, from my sources (Green Witchcraft by Ann Maura) and a few others, Gardner got his ideas and the name for Wicca from Wicce. It is something a lot of Witches use the word Wicca because they feel a need to describe themselves with a kind of religion feel to it. I dont like any kind of "religion" I practive rituals, to help me in my sprituality, but iif it gets to much of a religion feel I will change.

How inthe world can you claim to know haw Jesus thought. Know that he was God, know that hte only way to heaven is through Jesus Christs salvation but cannot know when he was born? I didnt ask you if you burned a Yule log, just the fact that its part of the tradition. Our name for Christmas is Yule. I still celebrate Christmas, the kids love it. I dont believe in pushing any religion on a child, they should be adults before putting that kind of decision in there lap. The rest of the free world does it so we do also so the kids dont feel wierd.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
So where is this "Urdu valley" and what were the paintings found that were found 30,000 years ago that clearly show the pagen origins of wicca? I could make a Jackson Pollack and say it proven Jesus christ lived around 2000 years ago, and no one could prove me wrong.

Any research that has been done by independat sources have found that Gardner is behind the current Pagen revival, and only those that have something to lose deny it.

I once was a non-beliver, and it is a matter of faith, and Gods grace that I belive that Jesus died as a payment for my sins, so I my attain salvation. I could no more prove it to you as you could prove to me the anceint origins of Wicca. tho I can firmly say I have a history in Texts going back 7000 years, as well as supporting archeological evidance to prove the origins of my faith.

you are so caught up in trying to prove your "religion" taht you will grab anything that might support it, while I don't ahve to prove anything. Since I dont need to prove my faith to you, but only to God



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
you are so caught up in trying to prove your "religion" taht you will grab anything that might support it, while I don't ahve to prove anything. Since I dont need to prove my faith to you, but only to God


Sorry I dont practice religion. I practice spirituality.

I wasnt trying to "prove" to you my religion, I was debunking yours. I am just plain sick of the negative side of your religion. If you christians would just concentrate on the positive side your religion would not be dying.

The fastest growing religion in the US is Pagan. If you feel a need to call it a religion. Also back to your proof aspect of your post. Why did the church destroy so much information about my beliefs and a good share of yours? What were they hiding? I am truly starting to believe the church has taken the good works of Jesus and twisted them into something so evil, and has placed the world into its corporate backed road to destruction.

Hug a tree. Take nature into your heart, because if we do not stop trying to destroy nature. something we are, we will only destroy ourselves. This is the road to salvation my friend, the same road those good Native Americans used to be on until all those christian white men came along to destroy them and convert what was left to your evil materialistic satan backed belief system.

Think about it. All sin so if you do live in sin all will be forgivin by taking the word of Jesus into your heart. I dont see the fruits in that, I only see words.




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If you don't call wicca a religion and instead spirtuality, you might want to look at a dictionary, and find out it is, even if you don't like the label. Atheisum is a religion.

in fact, you even use it in the next paragraph yourself

The fastest growing religion in the US is Pagan


That staement is pure falsehood, and can only be true if you only take into acount a % increase in membership in comparison to previous numbers and include tribal religions in the mix. Wicca/Pagen belivers are one of the smallest religious groups in the world. Below the number of Shinto, or Taoists, and FAR below Atheists. Only personal perception by inlcuding many people who belive the same as you can possibly make it seem that it is differant.

FYI Christianity has actaully been in decline as a percentage of the world population (Dropped 1 percent in the last 100 years) and Islam has been increasing.

Now this is a first that I have found that MY religion, which you obvisouly have no clue what it is except that it has to do with Christinity is negative. Dont compare me to religions that use fear as a motivator to fill the church coffers and attend church. I find great Joy in studing the bible, and going ot church, participating in church related activities (we're going to go bowling in a few weeks), helping my chruch grow, while stregthing and helping each others faith. In fact one member after 20 years of marriage is in sheer bliss that after adopting two chinese children over the course of thier marriage, his wife is now pregnent, as he said himself "I have been blessed". Yep, lots of negativty there.

Destroy information about your beliefs? excuse me I think you are complaiing to the wrong person and accusing MY church of doing something it never did. In fact, MY church actaully fought to bring back Christianity the way it was.

Don't develope a marytr complex to defend your beliefs it is rather parthetic to accuse another religion of attacking your own without any substatial proof.

You know what? Yesturday I did hug a tree. It is an Old maple that has been growing in my parents backyard since I was old enough to walk. I have climbed it, hung a swing from it, used it for target practice while practicing my martial arts, built a fire out of its dead branches, had loads of fun playing with the propeller seeds. To me nature shows hwo great God is, and how even the tinyest details can bring great wonder. For if he is able to create such colorful flowers and brilliant plumage fo birds, jsut think of how much he will take care of me, who he has called his son.

I dont have to worry abotu this earth, and can instead look forward to the perfect earth in heaven that is waiting for me. Yes I sin, but sins are not jsut forgiven, you have to ASK for them to be forgiven, and try to change your sinful nature, so that eventually, with that strong faith in Christ you can become perfect without sin.

yes they are words, but all words are symbols and have meaning, it is just a matter if you want to listen to them and take them to heart



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I am sure you are a good spiritual man my friend.

When I speak of information destroyed I speak about things magickal and metaphysical in nature. The church, maybe not your particular local church, has destroyed priceless amounts of information.



That staement is pure falsehood, and can only be true if you only take into acount a % increase in membership in comparison to previous numbers and include tribal religions in the mix. Wicca/Pagen belivers are one of the smallest religious groups in the world.


All tribal religions are Pagan. We are not just Wiccan, we as Pagans just do not have a monothestic belief. It is a fact that it is the fastest growing religion in the US. When I metioned about your churche dying it is true. You are not gaining new young followers as fast as your numbers are growing old. Look at how old your church members are getting. It is comparable to the car company Oldsmobile. They were not getting the young market because of the image, so there clientel just aged thmeselves out of existance.

If the Christian church does not drop this only way to heaven is through Jesus business it will too never get the young following in the numbers it will need. Just fair warning.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
If the Christian church does not drop this only way to heaven is through Jesus business it will too never get the young following in the numbers it will need. Just fair warning.


Changing the doctrine in order to attract members?

Is this how your religion, spiritual practice, or movement attracts adherents?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I follow a spiritual path that is my own. Pagans do not advertise, people just come to realize in a lot of cases there higher power and other beliefs they put together are Pagan.

You should not change your religion one bit, it really needs to implode. Unless you drop this whole commit sin and be forgiven business, then its cool.

Just kidding by the way.





posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
I could no more prove it to you as you could prove to me the anceint origins of Wicca. tho I can firmly say I have a history in Texts going back 7000 years, as well as supporting archeological evidance to prove the origins of my faith.

you are so caught up in trying to prove your "religion" taht you will grab anything that might support it, while I don't ahve to prove anything. Since I dont need to prove my faith to you, but only to God


7000 years for christianity/Judaism I dont think so, according to the bible it would be 4004 BCE so your 1000 years out by bible standings. Also the fact that the OT can't be dated further back than about 500 BCE so really you could only logically give Christianity's/judaism origins as around 1800 BCE with Abraham. The oldest surviving religion is reckoned to be Hinduism at around 6000 BCE.
On Paganism I have to agree with the Lonegunman that it is not a religion as such but a way of life like buddhism.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Changing the doctrine in order to attract members?

Is this how your religion, spiritual practice, or movement attracts adherents?

I seem to remember not that long ago the Catholic church in the UK changing the doctrine by stating that parts of the bible weren't true/ to be taken literally. Was this not to increase membership??

G



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
I seem to remember not that long ago the Catholic church in the UK changing the doctrine by stating that parts of the bible weren't true/ to be taken literally. Was this not to increase membership??

G


On the first point, come on. Back it up if your going to make a claim like that, unless you're just looking for a fight, not to deny ignorance.

As to this quoted point, it depends on how cynical you are feeling. Yeah, it could have been to increase membership. Another possibility would be that the powers that be in the Catholic Church thought that what they were saying was...true.

So you have to judge their actions on what you think they actually believe. Do they believe Jesus is their Savior, and they're living their lives to serve Him? If so, chances are they would make such claims because they actually believed them.

Do you believe they see Catholocism as a business opportunity? Thne it would make sense that they would change their views to attract more donaters.

Do you believe they see Christianity as not being good enough to change someone's heart, so they tried to cater to the world to bring more people to know Christ? Then it may have been a combination.

Out of curiosity, though, to what, specifically, were you referring to? I have no idea, but from the Catholic Church's history of reaching out to Pagans, this wouldn't suprise me.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
7000 years for christianity/Judaism I dont think so, according to the bible it would be 4004 BCE so your 1000 years out by bible standings. Also the fact that the OT can't be dated further back than about 500 BCE so really you could only logically give Christianity's/judaism origins as around 1800 BCE with Abraham. The oldest surviving religion is reckoned to be Hinduism at around 6000 BCE.
On Paganism I have to agree with the Lonegunman that it is not a religion as such but a way of life like buddhism.


Originally posted by junglejake
On the first point, come on. Back it up if your going to make a claim like that, unless you're just looking for a fight, not to deny ignorance.

Ok do you deny that the bible chronology starts around 4004 BCE? If not then 7000 years for christianity is wrong. Using the Newadvent website and a few others they state that around 300 BCE there were a few scriptural manuscripts. They also state that the Dead sea scrolls are one of the oldest.
Judaism started with Abraham who supposedly lived about 1800 BCE while Christianity is definately circa 100 CE.
So what claim do you want me to back up?

Originally posted by junglejake
Do you believe they see Catholocism as a business opportunity? Thne it would make sense that they would change their views to attract more donaters.

Do you believe they see Christianity as not being good enough to change someone's heart, so they tried to cater to the world to bring more people to know Christ? Then it may have been a combination.

Yes to both


Originally posted by junglejake
Out of curiosity, though, to what, specifically, were you referring to? I have no idea, but from the Catholic Church's history of reaching out to Pagans, this wouldn't suprise me.

I really dont understand what your getting at! what are you referring to?
I never mentioned the church and paganism together.


G



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
As to what I was getting at, I missed the "UK" part of what you were saying about the Catholic church. That was, by the way, only 4 bishops who came out and made that claim, and was not representative of the Catholic church as a whole. The Pagan thing was the introduction of Christmas and Easter back in the day to bring in more pagans, which is why I didn't dismiss your claim about Catholicism stating that parts of the Bible were false.

As to the 4004 BC date, no, I don't necessarily agree. I have no idea where such a specific date came from. Everything I've read from the non-evolution/a day is a day side has talked about the age of the Earth being between 6,000 to 12,000 years old. Those who believe in the day-age theory and the gap theory have much larger dates. Both are scripturally sound.

Finally, you said the Torah didn't exist until 500 BC? Does that account for oral traditions, or do you mean the oldest copy found? If you mean the oldest copy found, does that mean that we have discovered everything in archaeology now, and it's a dead science?



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
As to what I was getting at, I missed the "UK" part of what you were saying about the Catholic church. That was, by the way, only 4 bishops who came out and made that claim, and was not representative of the Catholic church as a whole. The Pagan thing was the introduction of Christmas and Easter back in the day to bring in more pagans, which is why I didn't dismiss your claim about Catholicism stating that parts of the Bible were false.

Someone must have sanctioned these 4 bishops to make that statement, what is the Papal stance on this? Yes I know they stole christmas and easter and tried to hijack halloween (all saints day), they'll probably have one around the summer solstice and autumn equinoxe as well.


As to the 4004 BC date, no, I don't necessarily agree. I have no idea where such a specific date came from. Everything I've read from the non-evolution/a day is a day side has talked about the age of the Earth being between 6,000 to 12,000 years old. Those who believe in the day-age theory and the gap theory have much larger dates. Both are scripturally sound.

The 4004 came from an Irish bishop in the 17th century (I think). He used the ages of people to figure it out. According to the Pope in the 90's evolutionary theory was compatible with christianity.


Finally, you said the Torah didn't exist until 500 BC? Does that account for oral traditions, or do you mean the oldest copy found? If you mean the oldest copy found, does that mean that we have discovered everything in archaeology now, and it's a dead science?

Sorry I'm wrong not 500 BCE but 120-150 BCE for the oldest copy found. I agree that oral traditions must have existed and possibly older copies, after all archaeological evidence backs up some of the stories in the early bible stories. And no archeaology is not dead theres still loads more to find and you never know finally evidence to prove one way or the other might just be sitting waiting to be found.



G



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Someone must have sanctioned these 4 bishops to make that statement,


Why? They went to the press and said they agreed to it.

I would also like to point out that the Pope is not my spiritual leader, nor do I follow Catholic doctrine. There are definitely some things that I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on, but not everything.

To give you an example, imagine you're in another country. I don't know what your political persuasion is, but say the opposite ideology is in power and someone comes to you and says your politics are wrong because of what that leader did or that political party stands for. Yes, as an American, you are grouped together, but you belong to a different political sect that also believes in the core of the nation, the Constitution and representative democracy, but not on how to interpret it. That's kind of how various denominations work. We all believe in scripture, and we all believe in Christ. However, each denomination has a different interpretation of that scripture. So just because Catholicism says something, it doesn't mean every Christian agrees. Also, just because a guy came up with the date of 4004 BC by using people's ages as noted in scripture doesn't mean every Christian agrees with him (the Bible does not give the age of the person when they had a child
That was guesswork on the bishop's part).

Not being a Catholic myself, I am probably not the best representative for discussing these Catholic issues. It would be like, for me, defending the ideology of Democrats. I could do it, and have in the past, but I couldn't do it as well as someone who actually believes it.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Your comment about the variety of sects within a religion is very poignant. It shows that even the believers cannot agree on what it all means, I can also guarantee the within these sects there will be variety of differing beliefs about the same belief system. I mean you dont believe the exact same thing as the person sitting next to you in church.
Therefore why should I and others take any one of these systems as being the truth. Why should we take your version of events as being the original story.
The problem itself stems from three things:- Belief, Knowledge and Predisposition.
Belief can change with knowledge but then we are predisposed to believe certain things/ to do certain things. We base belief on knowledge therefore our beliefs can change when our knowledge of the system changes. So what you believe today might not be what you believe tommorrow.
So from what I know of religious systems and my predisposition to ask questions and not take things as being truthful until I'm satisfied that my knowledge of said systems, my belief is that these systems are wrong (not entirely but wrong all the same) and until I have knowledge otherwise (thats why I ask questions here) my beliefs will stay the same.


G



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
It shows that even the believers cannot agree on what it all means


It is true there are disagreements amongst believers. Is there a Hell? Is faith alone good enough to save? Do we have free will or just the perception of free will? Was the earth created in 6 days or 6 ages? Is Revelation prophesy to come, or has it already in Nero's time? Those are just some of the heated issues for Christian laypeople. When you talk about Biblical scholors, it gets far more involved.

Yet there are some concepts that all Christians agree on. Jesus Christ is Lord and savior. God is soverign. The Bible is the Word of God.

Science has these same issues; does that mean science should be ignored because some scientists disagree on the interpretation of data?



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Thankfully, all evidence points to the resurrection.

? No evidence points torwards a resurrection and all evidence indicates that a dead person dead for three days can't come back to life.

I agree, no ressurection, no central miracle of christianity, and the religion is, at absolute best, completely altered.

I don't see why the fact that something could completely change christianity means that its empty. Any religion could be completely changed, any thing could be changed.


LoneGunMan
Jesus, his message was NOT his dying of crucifixtion.

Thats your take on it, but its not the take that most christians have on it. Without the ressurection, there is no 'jesus is god'. Without it, he's just some pacifist. You noted it yourself, that jesus is the one who opened the 'third eye chakra'. Thats not the jesus of christianity. Thats a different sort of jesus created more recently by new agey type movements. Its not the jesus of the apostles, and the like. Without the ressurection, and thus divinity, then Jesus is just some guy, who's a super nice guy, but who cares, there's lots of super nice people out there. The central focus is that god is this super nice guy, that god is the one telling people to love one another, etc etc. Any man can say any particular set of things, what was striking was that god is saying it. If jesus wasn't god, then people'd still listen to him, it'd just have nothing ot do with divinity then.

If they could not figure out who the witch was they would kill everyone, burn the town stating "kill them all and let God sort them out".

Er, cite?

amethyst
One has to ask oneself why people try to tamper with it to begin with.

You mean like having a new translation made? As with the king james version?

akashic wanderer
So how do you know Jesus died on the cross? You'd say the bible; But if Jesus did not die on the cross, the bible is incorrect.

Yes, and? The bible is the source of information. It could be wrong. If there were more sources of information that jesus died on the cross, but he didn't really die, then they'd be wrong too.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
shihulud if you just go by manuscripts you are limiting youself by not taking into account the natural decompisition of parchment. Almsot every historion dates the bible by its accounts and referancing the kings and years between recorded in, then comparing them to archeological sites, or finds. so what happens when the dead sea scrolls eventually disappear? or what if they were never found? that does not make Judeo-christian history bunk.

Might as well throw out an oral traditions too, and we are left with nothing but new age movments for "true religion" that you can find at your local bookstore



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   


what if Jesus didnt die on the cross? What if it was proven to you that he survived and lived to be 120 years old in India?


I always thought the prevailing idea was that he instead went to France and raised kids with MM.... Oh well..


IF it were proven, it wouldn't be accepted by many. It would rock Christianity somewhat of course, as it is founded on the idea of the divinity of Christ and the resurrection....but in the end, many will go on believing what they've believed for years without the proof.....




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join