"Prove Christ exists" orders judge

Originally posted by Submersible
If a man honors the time of day that the rest of the world functions by, then he honors the life and death of Christ, right ?? ??

hmmmm ... I am really not sure what you are getting at here ... could you clarify this or elaborate more on what you mean?

LCKob

Originally posted by Submersible
If a man honors the time of day that the rest of the world functions by, then he honors the life and death of Christ, right ?? ??

I totally see what you are getting at...

However, to honor the time of day that the rest of the world observes is merely to maintain the social conformity that one is born into. It is convention, habit, convenience, et al...

Not to be construed as 'honoring the life and death of Christ'--especially for those who do not subscribe to belief in Christ at all.

Certainly not admissible in a court of law as 'proof that Jesus existed.'

Originally posted by just me 2
All the Father in the article has to do is read the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel and the case is laid out for him right there! (And a convincing one at that!)

This isn't 'proof', either, jm2. It is modern literature, a philosophical treatise supported by selected data from more objective sources. However, the use of objective findings to support a subjective belief is not able to transform the subjective into objective in a related situation.

Besides that, I don't think it is the Father that needs proof--whether or not he's read Strobel, I daresay he'd be in agreement for the most part--after all, they both believe in Christ. It is the judge who must be convinced, objectively--and the burden of proof is on the Father. The Father must find some sort of non-disputable evidence that Jesus existed.

If he can do it, the world will be turned upside down. But I don't see any possibility of it happening--if it could, then it surely would have already been shown before such a trivial thing as a civil court case between two men. All the Vatican in the world, standing behind the Father, isn't going to help him a bit in this case. The legal system is not about conjecture or circumstance, but about empirical evidence.

Just the facts, ma'am.

The proof is not available for a reason--it is not something we are supposed to have--either to prove or disprove Jesus--Jesus the man is not the issue, at any rate. I can't see that God would have been concerned about providing proof for man's religious artifices; it is one thing to 'send them strong delusion' and allow us to deceive ourselves (after all, it is innate human nature to deceive one's self) and another one altogether to purpose and provide the means to deceive us with some sort of 'proof' that we will invariably misunderstand and abuse, anyway.

Having proof of any sort of Christ would certainly defeat the purpose of belief, wouldn't it? It is all about learning--not about proving.

Originally posted by LCKob

Originally posted by Submersible
If a man honors the time of day that the rest of the world functions by, then he honors the life and death of Christ, right ?? ??

hmmmm ... I am really not sure what you are getting at here ... could you clarify this or elaborate more on what you mean?

LCKob

The time and date this world is synchronized on is " AD ". After Jesus (PBUH) Died.
We are supposedly 2006 years and a handfull of days away from the exact when Jesus (PBUH) died. Eventho' it is understood through some facts in our history, that we do not actually know the exact date and time when Jesus (PBUH) died, for some reason the entire world has agreed to honor THIS time. And everybody in the world knows that we are in " AD " time.

However, if by showing the judge that since he honor's the time, that he also is honoring the life and death of Jesus Christ (PBUH) is not good enough,
then why doesn't this priest just tell the judge that it is as impossible for him to PROVE that Jesus Christ (PBUH) walked this Earth, as it would be for the judge to PROVE that HE existed on this Earth 100 years from now.

Nothing, absolutely nothing at all in this world can be proven.
There are no starting points, there is nothing to determine where we began or why we are trying to bring about our own ending. There are NO points to be proven. Much less that one man inparticular walked this Earth, approximately 2006 years ago.
Like I said, the judge can't prove that he exist in 100 years from now, nor could anybody else in his family, especially if he was cremated.

Originally posted by Submersible
The time and date this world is synchronized on is " AD ". After Jesus (PBUH) Died.

Actually AD means - Anno Domini (Latin: In the Year of Our Lord; referring to the Gregorian calendar system). BCE meaning before common era is the other politically correct term.
Common Era
Anno Domini

Originally posted by Submersible
to PROVE that Jesus Christ (PBUH) walked this Earth, as it would be for the judge to PROVE that HE existed on this Earth 100 years from now.

Like I said, the judge can't prove that he exist in 100 years from now, nor could anybody else in his family, especially if he was cremated.

You're right, nobody can prove whether he existed; but what do you mean 100 years from now?

[edit on 6-1-2006 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Submersible
why doesn't this priest just tell the judge that it is as impossible for him to PROVE that Jesus Christ (PBUH) walked this Earth

Well, certainly he can. And then he will have to fulfill the order of the court, whatever it might be, as far as reparation to the Signor--for 'denouncing' him publicly over a difference of unprovable opinion.

Which, no doubt, he will have to do, regardless--whether he makes at attempt at providing proof or not.

Either way, though--maybe he will learn, by experience, one of the reasons for the instruction that the physically-unprovable Jesus gave about not judging another--since it is 'according to the flesh' and not 'righteous judgment.'

IOW, he should have just kept his opinion about the Signor to himself, instead of abusing his religious authority and 'denouncing' someone who didn't feel pressed to obey said authority.

Nothing, absolutely nothing at all in this world can be proven.

Philosophically, that's true.

But the judicial system and the rights of citizens under a democratic government is not borne from that same type of philosophy.

Hence the necessary separation of 'church and state.'

Submersible:

The time and date this world is synchronized on is " AD ". After Jesus (PBUH) Died.
We are supposedly 2006 years and a handfull of days away from the exact when Jesus (PBUH) died. Eventho' it is understood through some facts in our history, that we do not actually know the exact date and time when Jesus (PBUH) died, for some reason the entire world has agreed to honor THIS time. And everybody in the world knows that we are in " AD " time.

However, if by showing the judge that since he honor's the time, that he also is honoring the life and death of Jesus Christ (PBUH) is not good enough,
then why doesn't this priest just tell the judge that it is as impossible for him to PROVE that Jesus Christ (PBUH) walked this Earth, as it would be for the judge to PROVE that HE existed on this Earth 100 years from now.

Nothing, absolutely nothing at all in this world can be proven.
There are no starting points, there is nothing to determine where we began or why we are trying to bring about our own ending. There are NO points to be proven. Much less that one man inparticular walked this Earth, approximately 2006 years ago.
Like I said, the judge can't prove that he exist in 100 years from now, nor could anybody else in his family, especially if he was cremated.

LCKob:

Okay I understand your context ... its the reference to "Anno Domini" ... "In the year of our Lord"?

Well as I understand it ....

Originating with Julius Caesar in 45 B.C.E. by advice of the Greek astronomer Sosigeness. There is a problem with this calender though, namely that its year was eleven minutes and fourteen seconds longer than a solar year. By 1582 the vernal equinox "occurred" ten days earlier (due this discrepancy), so to address the issue, Pope Gregory XIII dropped ten days from the Julian calendar and instituted the Gregorian calendar, which accounted for the surplus with the compensating rule that any century year divisible by 400 should be a leap year (all others should be regular or non-leap years).

Our present chronology /terminology, was likely established in 525 by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who places the birth of Jesus Christ in the 753th year of Rome.

Now, if this is the case, then the celebration or honor in the apellation of the AD is one "...one after the suppositional fact" ...

LCKob



[edit on 6-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by queenannie38

IOW, he should have just kept his opinion about the Signor to himself, instead of abusing his religious authority and 'denouncing' someone who didn't feel pressed to obey said authority.

hmmmm ... makes me wonder just how many individuals would have lived full lives if the precurser "It is my opinion that..." was used by default in issues or scenarios of potential subjectivity.

LCKob @@

Originally posted by LCKob
hmmmm ... makes me wonder just how many individuals would have lived full lives if the precurser "It is my opinion that..." was used by default in issues or scenarios of potential subjectivity.

Excellent food for thought...

The immediate thought I have is...

such a precursor necessitates a rather objective comprehension regarding the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective' information.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LCKob
hmmmm ... makes me wonder just how many individuals would have lived full lives if the precurser "It is my opinion that..." was used by default in issues or scenarios of potential subjectivity.

Excellent food for thought...

The immediate thought I have is...

such a precursor necessitates a rather objective comprehension regarding the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective' information.

3 travelers walking down the same path ...


Person X: I am of the opinion that my god is supreme in the universe ...

Person Y: I also am of the opinion that my god is supreme in the universe

Person X: ... but this is not possible how can we both be right ...

Person Y: Well, let me ask you ... what is the context of your assertion?

Person X: My religion says ...

Person Y: Yes, thats right, the context for your assertion (and mine) is our respective religions ... in otherwords the context is our beliefs ....

Person X: ... and so, what significance is that?

Person Y: Well, simply that by the virtue of our beliefs, we can both hold that our respective views are correct ...

Person X: Yes, but that proves nothing at all ...

Person Y: Ah, but you are wrong my friend, that proves faith in the highest sense. You see, if we fight, and, say I lose, then do you claim that your god is stronger than my god? ... and even if this is true ... does not the need to confirm this by battle ... in essense a need for confirmation or proof? ... and in so achieving such a victory, does one lose faith ... to conviction based upon unworthy motives? ... how does the saying go ... gain the world loose your soul ...

Person Z: Yes, but what about Science then ...

Person Y: Haha, now thats easy, True Science deals with proofs and method ... Religion requires Faith ... these two views require mutually exclusive elements.

If you need Proof, that is not Religion,

If you rely on Faith then it is not Science.

When taken in the proper perspective or context, the two NEVER meet.




... and any conflict, between the three only PROVES that man is imperfect ...

... and that is something all three of us can agree to ....

(the three travelers laugh) and walk to the nearest inn for some wine ... with their new friends)




LCKob

[edit on 6-1-2006 by LCKob]

I have been exposed to a poor schedule of education, and it would have probably been better if I would have attended college in situations like this,

thanks for the lessons

I always thought AD meant 'After He Died' and BC meant 'Before Christ',
anyway ,

"You're right, nobody can prove whether he existed; but what do you mean 100 years from now? "

If by some miracle natural human life is still an option here in 100 years, without scientific proof , which would involve providing a portion of your remains... it would be impossible to give 'concrete' evidence that you existed here. Think about what it would take for you to prove that your Great Great Great grandparents were living on a particular date and time approx. 100 years ago.

"Well as I understand it ....

Originating with Julius Caesar in 45 B.C.E. by advice of the Greek astronomer Sosigeness. There is a problem with this calender though, namely that its year was eleven minutes and fourteen seconds longer than a solar year. By 1582 the vernal equinox "occurred" ten days earlier (due this discrepancy), so to address the issue, Pope Gregory XIII dropped ten days from the Julian calendar and instituted the Gregorian calendar, which accounted for the surplus with the compensating rule that any century year divisible by 400 should be a leap year (all others should be regular or non-leap years).
Our present chronology /terminology, was likely established in 525 by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who places the birth of Jesus Christ in the 753th year of Rome.
Now, if this is the case, then the celebration or honor in the apellation of the AD is one "...one after the suppositional fact" ...


I guess so...
I'm just saying that if a court tries to remove the foundation of the existence of Jesus Christ (PBUH) , then the best defence would be to take away the foundation of the court first, by making it clear that if they do not honor the time then this court is obviously 'lost'.

whatever,
I just wish I wouldn't have screwed that last post up sooo bad.
oh well, that is what I believed it meant.

thank God these things are here
(im not really that stupid)

I'm just saying that if a court tries to remove the foundation of the existence of Jesus Christ (PBUH) , then the best defence would be to take away the foundation of the court first, by making it clear that if they do not honor the time then this court is obviously 'lost'.


"if they do not honor the time then the court is lost..."

LCKob:

Do you mean to threaten the court system with something like damnation?

Originally posted by LCKob
I'm just saying that if a court tries to remove the foundation of the existence of Jesus Christ (PBUH) , then the best defence would be to take away the foundation of the court first, by making it clear that if they do not honor the time then this court is obviously 'lost'.


"if they do not honor the time then the court is lost..."

LCKob:

Do you mean to threaten the court system with something like damnation?

Hell yeah !

I'm not sure, but by introducing this case into court, if the Priest loses doesn't that mean that the catholic church loses it's basic foundation in the belief of Jesus Christ (PBUH).
You know how they say " it all boils down to this " ?

Well it's not that I disagree with a court or anybody trying to 'nail' down the facts in the issue of whether ''God'' does or does not exist,
it's just that I do not believe any court is ready to step in and do what it takes to replace the existence in something 'greater'...
eventhough they are willing to remove it.

If anybody chooses to take away the worlds belief that a Savior once existed on this Earth then they are basically attempting to take away the world's belief that a Savior is going to return. right ?

And I'm sorry for the display of ignorance in my 'AD' reply earlier, it was an honest mistake.

I'm Creole !

Originally posted by LCKob

... and any conflict, between the three only PROVES that man is imperfect ...

... and that is something all three of us can agree to ....

From: Francis Bacon 'On Unity in Religion'
A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning.

[edit on 1/7/2006 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LCKob

... and any conflict, between the three only PROVES that man is imperfect ...

... and that is something all three of us can agree to ....

From: Francis Bacon 'On Unity in Religion'
A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning.

[edit on 1/7/2006 by queenannie38]

OUTSTANDING! My hat of to you my Queen! < bows >

LCKob

[edit on 7-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by Submersible
If anybody chooses to take away the worlds belief that a Savior once existed on this Earth then they are basically attempting to take away the world's belief that a Savior is going to return. right ?

It is not the world's belief.. it is a christians. There are other 'saviours' and mythologies.. if you want christ's existance not to be questioned.. should you have the right to dismiss the possible existence of other saviours? Would you have a problem with a monk being asked to prove buddha existed? Christianity does not have a monopoly on western culture anymore.. the legal sytem [one would hope] must reflect this and be impartial.

Originally posted by Submersible
I'm not sure, but by introducing this case into court, if the Priest loses doesn't that mean that the catholic church loses it's basic foundation in the belief of Jesus Christ (PBUH).
You know how they say " it all boils down to this " ?

Exactly--this court case is not about Jesus Christ--it's about taking responsibility for what one lets out of their thoughts through written or spoken words.

Well it's not that I disagree with a court or anybody trying to 'nail' down the facts in the issue of whether ''God'' does or does not exist,
it's just that I do not believe any court is ready to step in and do what it takes to replace the existence in something 'greater'...
eventhough they are willing to remove it.

You're not understanding the principle, here--it is not about proving whether Christ existed for the world's belief purposes...

It just happens to be the point of evidence which determines whether the Father was out of line with what he said about the Signor or not.

Regardless of what anyone believes, no one has the right to do damage to another's existence (by reputation, or whatever) based on a difference of beliefs. And beliefs are fact to the believer, but opinion to everyone else.

If anybody chooses to take away the worlds belief that a Savior once existed on this Earth then they are basically attempting to take away the world's belief that a Savior is going to return. right ?

'The world' doesn't believe that--a good portion of the world's population have some sort of expectation, no doubt--but we cannot generalize or assume something like that and then apply it to our (for a specific reason) church and state separated government systems.

What the heck is 'PBUH?'

LCKob:

Do you mean to threaten the court system with something like damnation?



Submersible:

Hell yeah !

I'm not sure, but by introducing this case into court, if the Priest loses doesn't that mean that the catholic church loses it's basic foundation in the belief of Jesus Christ (PBUH).
You know how they say " it all boils down to this " ?

LCKob:

A sticky situation to be sure ... but one that unfortunately forces the chuch to address in some definitive way ....

But my take on it is this ... IMO the Church should state something to the intent of the following:

Contrary to the desires of certain individuals, proof or confirmation of christian dogma cannot by defintion be proven. The reason for this is based in the notion of faith and thus belief. Where belief transends the desire or need for proof. Therefore, the request for proof, categorically cannot by definition be supplied ... for that in itself would cast away god.

Submersible:

Well it's not that I disagree with a court or anybody trying to 'nail' down the facts in the issue of whether ''God'' does or does not exist,
it's just that I do not believe any court is ready to step in and do what it takes to replace the existence in something 'greater'...
eventhough they are willing to remove it.

If anybody chooses to take away the worlds belief that a Savior once existed on this Earth then they are basically attempting to take away the world's belief that a Savior is going to return. right ?

LCKob:

Actually, the court is not trying to take away anything, what it is doing is maintaining the correct perspective of such ... as you say it is a belief, yes?

... and as a belief, it is personal and subjective... and therefore potentially different in as as many ways as there are individuals on this planet?

So, the basis of this situation boils down to the notion of maintaining the definition of "belief" as opposed to "truth" ... after all, to some extent, we humans all have our own beliefs ... which is fine for the most part ... as long
as these personal views or beliefs remain just that - personal.

Actually the problem at hand is really very simple ...

Person A: What I say is absolute truth.

Person B: Well, I am of a different opinion ...

Person A: You are wrong ... I have the truth.

Person B: Okay, I am all for the truth, prove to me what you say is the truth ... and I will gladly change my view to yours ... if not, then please use the term opinion as opposed to Truth.


Person A: .................................

(right now we are at person A for such vindication)


So, as I see it, the culmination of events is just the sum of saying ... If what you say is absolute truth ... then prove it ... if you can't then like everyone else you are entitled to your PERSONAL opinion.

LCKob I don't know wht PBUH means either ahahahahahahah

[edit on 7-1-2006 by LCKob]

If it is found that Jesus Christ didn't exist as man that the Christian religion claims I think it will do the world some good. This could free good people from psychological bindings.

It means that you don't have to accept Christ as your savior to enter heaven, because if he never existed he can't have actually died for our sins. Man would rather only accept that his teachings are good lessons to live by, and if you follow these guidelines, your soul will be ok.

And it will finally put to rest the debate of his ethnicity. Jesus was imaginary!!!

"So, the basis of this situation boils down to the notion of maintaining the definition of "belief" as opposed to "truth" ... after all, to some extent, we humans all have our own beliefs ... which is fine for the most part ... as long
as these personal views or beliefs remain just that - personal.

Actually the problem at hand is really very simple ...

Person A: What I say is absolute truth.

Person B: Well, I am of a different opinion ...

Person A: You are wrong ... I have the truth.

Person B: Okay, I am all for the truth, prove to me what you say is the truth ... and I will gladly change my view to yours ... if not, then please use the term opinion as opposed to Truth.


Person A: ................................. ""

This is what I feel in my heart. Is it not proof enough that what I feel is 'real' since you are trying to take it away from me ?

When some people speak the name Jesus, they follow His name with
(Peace Be Upon Him) as a sign of respect, a tradition of Muslims.
Which I am not by any means, but would love to be for many reasons.



[edit on 7-1-2006 by Submersible]