Did Jesus exist?

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
BlackGuard, I think you should substitute "proof" with "evidence". One can't even "prove" Julius Caesar existed. Well, think about this. Do you really, really, really think it's credible that anyone could have believed the story of Jesus only about a century after his alleged death if he really didn't exist?

If you say yes, you're just being dishonest.

I just love it when someone mentions Julius Caesar in the same context as evidence for christ. First off the evidence for the existence of Caesar far outweighs the evidence for christ. With christ we have the NT and about 24 lines from non-contempory historians etc (which are very vague and debateable) - Thats IT!!!.
Caesar however, we have multiple contempory accounts, we have treaties and other documents written by the fair hand of Caesar himself, we have statues of Caesar, we have other countries rulers mentioning Caesar. Etc etc

So using this body of evidence I can conclude that the likelyhood of a person named Julius Caesar ruling Rome over 2000 years ago is true - which cannot be said for the jesus story.


G




posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
In every Christian post claiming there is physical evidence there is also an absence of any support for that claim. Not one of them point to an actual piece of proof.


Well, I'm not a Christian (I couldn't tell if you were talking about me or not).

There's no proof, yeah, but there's evidence like you said. It's not great evidence--written decades later and with hard-to-believe things mixed in. But it's evidence.

But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast, and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.

If there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed. You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
So using this body of evidence I can conclude that the likelyhood of a person named Julius Caesar ruling Rome over 2000 years ago is true - which cannot be said for the jesus story.


Yeah, it's not a good comparison, though.

Caesar was a famous ruler in an advanced society.

Jesus would've been a nobody, just some teacher, teaching in a highly illiterate place and really only heard of by the Jews until he died.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbitThere's no proof, yeah, but there's evidence like you said. It's not great evidence--written decades later and with hard-to-believe things mixed in. But it's evidence.

But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast, and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.

If there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed. You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.

I don't hold as high a level of critical thinking skills to people in general, even now, let alone then. It is not hard for me to believe that large numbers of people would not bother to question the veracity of what they were told, and people always love a bandwagon. Jesus may well be a real person, I have said I am a supporter of that theory. My only point is he may not have been, and that I think that position is likely the more rational conclusion based on the evidence.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
did jesus exist? maybe, sure Josephus did mention him, but this was years after jesus was crucified. If jesus did exist, then he most likely would have been exicuted as a heritic because of his denoucement of the jewish way of life at the time. back then most of the middle east was ruled by the jews (under the roman thumb of course), and like john the baptist who spoke out against the ruling class which was causing most people to live in poverty, jesus most likely picked up where john left off... defending the poor (...blessed are the poor...) I really don't think that the romans cared too much for the stories about jesus, becuse the romans never enforced thier religon upon the countries that they conqured, until constatine made the bible out of old stories (both judaism, and stories of the christ) that were gaining in popularity at his time. if you look at old roman paganism you will see the adoption of many other religons, i.e. greek, celtic, germanic, etc... but either way if he existed or not as time passes, people will always exsagerate a story because after all, if the legend is more popular than the truth... print the legand.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
shihulud, you make a good point there is evidance that confirm the existance of ceaser, such as documants in his own hand. we have yet to find any testament writen by jesus or anything writen by jesus for that matter. ceaser had statues and building made for him in his OWN time, and jesus had stories told after his supposed death. they where however writen down about 60 years after his death, but most of these stories never made it into the bible. the book of thomas, the book of mary, the book of enoc, and the book of jubilee. just to name a few.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
It is true, that there seems to be little documentation, other than the Bible, Torah, and the Koran... However, it's enough for me to think that there was a man named Jesus (or more properly, called Jesus)


There were actually several named Jesus that lived, however, none of them fit the bibical description of Jesus Christ.

It is interesting to note that there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived, and one would think that some of the things he was said to have done would have made it into the histories. Example: Turning over the money changers tables in the temple. The earthquake at the crucifixion. Raising Lazarus from the dead. His own rising from the dead. The dead that walked the streets after his resurrection. These things should have made it into history and they didn't. And I didn't even touch on the miracles he supposedly performed.

Here is an interesting bit of reading to think on.

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

5. He performed miracles.

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

7. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

8. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

9. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

10. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ
.
11. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

12. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

13. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

For those who do not know...

Mithra: is an important deity or divine concept (Yazata) in Zoroastrianism and later Iranian history and culture.

Mithra is descended, together with the Vedic deity Mitra, from a common proto-Indo-Iranian entity *mitra "treaty, bond".

Makes for interesting reading and really shines a light onto what is being taught.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
This is to place the demands of today's ultra-literate society onto a society that did not operate that way.


No.
You avoided the issue.

Christian writers from the 2nd century onwards, AFTER the Gospels had become widespread, repeatedly discuss the details of Jesus' life and teachings and actions at length. All based on the Gospels of course, no Christian writer shows any detailed knowledge of Jesus except that which came from the Gospels.

Before the Gospels:
hardly a peep about Jesus life or teachings or sayings or miracles, even when EXPECTED.

After the Gospels:
endless repeated preaching on and on about every little detail no matter how small, on and on, over and over, back and forth, ad nauseum......


Paul and the NT epistles and the early writers like Clement include NO details about Jesus life at all.

The earliest writers were CLOSEST in time to Jesus, their reports of Jesus' actions and teachings should be the most complete.

But they are the exact opposite - they show almost NO MENTION of Jesus life, teachings or actions. Just the creed that he was "crucified" and "raised" - but never in an earthly setting.

From their writing Paul and the early writers saw Jesus as a spiritual being. There is not the slightest hint of him being a historical being - no dates, times, places.



Originally posted by d60944But in any event, the early church did write about him on occasion. Paul did so for example (and whatever you say, if there was no other writing, Paul's documents read just as sensibly as about a real person as they do about a myth). Except he was not interested in where he was born, what he ate for breakfast, what his mother did.


Ridiculous hyperbole.
You equate the ACTIONS and TEACHINGS of the very Christian GOD with what his mother did or what he had for breakfast?
Please don't insult my intelligence with stuff like that.

The teachings of Jesus, the actions of Jesus, the sayings of the Jesus are the most important things POSSIBLE to a Christian. And you pretend they are as important as a breakfast menu.

Paul has need to mention Jesus teachings many many times, when the words taught by Jesus would INSTANTLY win the argument. But Paul FAILS to do so, in two hundred places :
home.ca.inter.net...

Paul and the NT writers have every reason to mention Jesus actions, teachings, and sayings - because there is NOTHING more important to a Christian.

But, they conspicusouly FAIL to mention any such trappings of a historical being at all. These earliest writers all see a spiritual risen Christ being. No mention of a man.

It is pretty clear these writers did not even conceive of Jesus as a historical man.



Originally posted by d60944
And back at you, how come four seperate writers in different parts of the world all managed to tell the same story


Very simple.
A.Mark wrote his Gospel first, based on :
* Paul ideas
* OT background
* contemporary pagan myths
* contemporary literature
G.Mark was a hit - people loved it.

Then, A.Matthew and A.Luke COPIED from this very succesful G.Mark and made their own versions - similar but with changes to suit their own agendas.

Then, John wrote a rather Gnostic type Gospel, based somewhat on the synoptics.

So it's very simple -
Someone wrote a story, others copied it.

Why do you think that makes the story true?
Are all the various Hercules stories true?
Are all the various Luke Skywalker stories true?



Originally posted by d60944
(in three cases astonishingly closely the same)


Literally word-for-word the same for whole slabs of text.
They COPIED from G.Mark.
And you think this proves that plagiarized stories are really true?



Originally posted by d60944if there had been no preserved oral and written traditions of that story for them to draw on?


There WERE traditions that WERE drawn on, like I have said -
* Paul, the Tanakh, pagan myths and literature.

Why on earth do you think that makes it true?

These are religious legends, spiritual literature, deep myths - of course they draw on earlier traditions and stories etc.

But you seem to think this automatically makes them TRUE.
Why?


Iasion



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944


Scholars agree the "archons of this aeon" refer to spiritual beings.


What scholars?


Well, opinion is divided, then and now - e.g. Origen interpreted the passage as referring to heavenly rulers (de Principiis 3.3), while Tertullian interpreted the passage as referring to earthly rulers (Against Marcion 5.6.)

Currently, the majority favours the spiritual, or demonic theory :
"A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton, p. 46.)

Of course, it was wrong of me to say "scholars agree" as if 100% agree :-)
As if that ever happens.

Specifically, here is a list that was compiled over at IIDB -

Scholars that support the spiritual/demonic interpretation :
1. Conzelmann 2. W. J. P. Boyd 3. C. K. Barrett4. Paula Fredriksen5. Jean Hering 6. Delling 7. S. G. F. Brandon. 8. Paul Ellingworth 9. Thackeray 10. Schmiedel. 11. J. H. Charlesworth 12. Earl Doherty.

Scholars that support the earthly interpretation :
1. M. Pesce 2. A. W. Carr 3. T. Ling 4. Archibald Robertson 5. Alfred Plummer 6. William Orr 7. James Walther 8. Gene Miller 9. Leon Morris.


It's not as close as I had remembered.

Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944


This creed is possibly an interpolation - but anyway all it says is that Jesus APPEARED to many people, like he APPEARED to Paul. This is no more than a list of VISIONS of Jesus - so what?


So we'll chuck that bit of source out cos it doesn't agree with us? Or at least we'll make it appear to say something to suit our viewpoint instead of face value.


No, but -

1. we recognise that this passage is one of the most controversial of all and hotly contested as an interpolation.

2. we observe that on it's face value it's a list of "appearances" using the Greek word used to indicate visions.

3. we observe that on it's face value it does not match the list of appearances in the Gospels

So -
Christ "appeared" to some people, according to some people, but others disagree what happened.

So what?
Christ "appears" to people today, according to some people, but others disagree what happened.

So what's new?

Why would that be evidence for a historical person?



Originally posted by d60944
Where do you get that idea from? I don't know of anyone ever being called that except James.


But the Bible is full of allusions such as "children of the Lord" - it's a prominent metaphor to use family connections like that.

Ancient Christian writers sometimes called martyrs the "brothers of the lord" (e.g. the Apostolic Constitutions.)

Modern Christians writers even use the phrase "sister of the Lord" to refer to someone pious.
www.isle-of-man.com...

James could just as easily be called a "brother of the Lord" for his piety.



Originally posted by d60944
I'm sorry but I must bow out of this thread now. Iasion has made some good posts but unfortunately:


Well, it's been fun, cya :-)



Originally posted by d609441) does not seem to know what the entire discipline of textual criticism is


What sort of vague claim is this?
I met and answered all your arguments and provided plenty of meat to chew on.



Originally posted by d60944
2) sweeps all "evidence" they do not like away as "lies" and assumes all evidence they do like as "truths";


False.
Not ONCE did I ever call any evidence a "lie".
Not once.
In fact I specifically went out of my way in an earlier post to say it was NOT a lie.


Originally posted by d60944
3) has not read mainstream Biblical analysis either (or at least refuses to weigh all the sources and criticisms up in an objective balance); and


False.
I have read many of the main scholarly works and I cited and quote from quite a few of them. I didn't see many scholarly cites from you.


Originally posted by d60944
4) is not well-equipped with a knowledge of the development of the christian communities in the first couple of centuries.


Pfft !
Is that the best you can manage?
Another vague attack - in fact any reader can see I wiped the floor with you, and now you are leaving. Imagine my surprise :-)



Originally posted by d60944
You also seem ultimately to refuse to believe that people speak to each other and that the only infallible method of communication is the written document.


Nonsense.
I believe no such thing.

But you seem to believe that because people talk to each other, that means one specific legend is true when there is no historical evidence for it.

When in fact we all know people make up stories, embellish legends, craft myths - and the Jesus story has all the hall-marks, while having none of the historical anchors we would expect of a real person.

Jesus was a myth.



Originally posted by d60944
This is to confuse an essential point in textual criticism: the difference between mechanism of textual articulation (syntax, structure, semiology, sources, etc.) and the actual "plot" itself. We might eventually claim that the battle of Mons in WW1 never took place because there are stories of angels appearring beforehand by this logic.


Nonsense.
Real events always have stories told about them.
That does NOT mean that all stories told are of real events.

A better analogy would be :

We might claim that the story of the Golden Ass of Apuleis is not historical because it has clear signs of fictional and mythic composition - even though it is set in a clear place in time.

And indeed it is fiction.

Just as we might claim that the Jesus story is not historical because it has clear signs of fictional and mythic composition while having no historical anchors at all - even though it is set in a clear place in time.


Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
There's simply more reason and evidence to think Jesus was a real historical man than there is to think he was a myth.


So you keep SAYING.
But that's just your belief, and you keep repeating it.

But,
there isn't actually any hard evidence for Jesus - you haven't cited any.

And, you reasons boil down to "others believe it, so I believe it".



Originally posted by whiterabbit
I mean, cults fool people all the time with wacky made-up stories--but they don't start huge region-wide movements that begin running rampant through the local population.


Nonsense.
Don't you know ANYTHING about humankind?
It was common then, and it is common now -

Scientology started only a few decades ago, and now has millions of followers who all believe in wacky stories about Xenu.

History is full of bizarre religions - the assassins, the bacchic revels, the mysteries....

On and on it goes - people believing all sorts of stuff.

Jesus is no different to any other belief, except in one respect - it's the current leading religion in our cultures.

If our cultures hadn't worshipped this guy for nearly 2000 years, no-one would even know who Jesus was.



Originally posted by whiterabbit
To think that that could've happened without there being a real founder to base it on just doesn't make logical sense.


You appear to be not listening to what I say at all.

There WAS a real founder - Paul.
There WAS a real writer of the Gospels - "Mark".
There were OTHERS who wrote letters.

REAL people who founded the religion based on earlier ideas and themes.

Stop saying my argument claims "there was no real founder".
READ my words -
There WAS a real founder - Paul, based on earlier works, and followed up by "Mark" and others.



Originally posted by whiterabbit
Right... But we know for a fact the Christian movement sprang up in the first half of the first century. We know that those Christians, in their lifetimes, were persecuted and martyred. We know that the movement became large and notable.


.
So what?
But we know for a fact the Scientology movement sprang up in the first half of the first century. We know that those Scientologists in their lifetimes, were persecuted and martyred. We know that the movement became large and notable.
SO what?

Don't you get it?
Your entire argument amounts to :

People believed it, therefore it must be true.

But, you completely fail to realise that your argument FAILS when applied to other religions.

According to your argument any religions which grows quickly and is believed must be true.

Your argument claims Scientology is true,
your argument claims Islam is true,
your argument claims ancient Mithraism is true,
your argument claims just about every old religion is true...


It's a nonsense argument.

If you come up with anything new, I may answer.
But continuous repititon of :
"all these people believed it, therefore it must be true"
is just getting SO boring.


Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast,


Really?
How quickly?
Where are you figures please?
Just HOW fast did it grow?
How does it compare to say, Islam?
Please show your specific figures.

We all know you won't, as you have none.
You just repeated what some Christians told you.

In fact -
Christianity grew quite slowly at first.
Of course, Christian STORIES say it grew like wild-fire.
(Gee, what a surprise.)

But the facts do not match the Christian stories.
(Gee, what a surprise.)



Originally posted by whiterabbit
and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.


Here we go again.
It's clear whiterabbit does not listen to me, and never learns when he is shown wrong - but here are the facts, again, for lurkers :

1. the tales of Christian martyrs are LEGENDS from long afterwards, not history

2. people die for false beliefs all the time - so what?

whiterabbit just denies these facts.

Islamic suicide bombers DIE for their BELIEFS all the time.

Therefore,
according to whiterabbit's argument,
Islamic suicide bombers beliefs are TRUE!.

whiterabbit supports Islamic suicide bombers.



Originally posted by whiterabbit
if there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed.


Same old same old.

whiterabbit -
How many?
How quickly?
Show your figures please.

And, as I have said dozens of times, and as you have ignored just as many -

The martyrs are LEGENDS, later STORIES.

And, people die for false beliefs all the time.

Therefore,
according to your argument,
Islamic suicide bombers beliefs are TRUE!.

You supports Islamic suicide bombers.



Originally posted by whiterabbit
You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.


Yup,
that's your belief.
It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your argument claims SCientology is true.
It grew fast, members died for their beliefs.

Therefore, whiterabbit believes in Xenu.


Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by effin_a_hole
shihulud, you make a good point there is evidance that confirm the existance of ceaser, such as documants in his own hand.


Mate,
he is one of the most famous people EVER.
How much effort does it take to get his name right ?

He was not a person who ceases.
His name means "baldy".

Caesar.


Iasion



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
One thing that has always intrigued me about this argument, and by the way i'm not christian or religious but certainly interested in spirituality.

If Jesus didn't exist then why did the majority of his followers who were around at the time allow themselves to be martyred, executed and killed if they didn't believe in the truth of Jesus Christ?

I'm not getting into the argument about whether he was reserructed or not but the fact is that something extroadinary must have occurred in the belief systems of the people closest to him to have led themselves to die in his name and cause.

Imagine if you had witnessed that first hand, nothing could be as powerful and certianly the idea of physical death would have been put into perspective.

One could argue that they were fanatics like some of the modern day terrorists who are so keen to kill themselves in the name of their religion but these people weren't encouraged (as far as i know) to do this yet they died acknowledging the miracle of Christ.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Hi I believe I posted on this thread a long time ago, I am an active worshipping Christian, so therefore obviously believe that Jesus existed, that he died for me and rose again so I could obtain his inheritance. However I will not be called close minded either so I have been "listening" to the arguments for and against the existence of Jesus, obviously been a believer I don't consider facts when I'm thinking about whether or not Jesus existed, I believe he did and that is that, but I actually came to faith through considering the facts. So I have a few things to add to this argument. First off Iasion has made some good points but the somewhat abusive tones that some of his later posts took on has made me question his IQ surely anyone who can argue that logically doesn't need to stoop to the realms of petty name calling. However now that's out of the way onto what I have to offer. Starting with Caesar it was mentioned earlier that many documents were signed in his name, and I'm sure they were but are we talking about Julius Caesar, or Augustus Caesar or etc, from my own studies I know Julius Caesar as a prominent historical figure to some stories and poems written by his supposed contemporaries, and a book of which there are only a few (and none complete) copies in existence, and these were written by Romans, now there are many more copies of original documents recording Jesus existence, strangely enough these were written by Christians. So here is my argument if you say there is no proof Jesus Christ existed, I say;
There is no proof Julius Caesar existed...."Oh, illogical fundie" you're probably thinking...but go with me on this one(I believe he existed, just using him as a reference).

Say William Shakespeare never wrote that play about him. I would not know Caesar said "Et tu Brute" or whatever...

If I were not taught in school about how him and Augustus and Marcus Anthony, and all them...I would not know they existed...

There are lost of stuff written about Julius Caesar...but weren't they all done by Romans(then people following that.)? So if I asked..."Where is the Persian historical records of Julius Caesar?"....what would you say?

When a person asks me "Where is a non-Christian record of Jesus?" If people wrote about Jesus it was probably because they believe He was the son of God, the Messiah...so why would they be non-religious but would still write about Him?

If you hate, or dislike, someone...do you write about them so people in 100 or more years will know they were real?

And as a final point I would like to point out that there is one non-christian record of Jesus, when Luke started writing his gospel he was writing a historical record of things, it was only after examining his subject matter that he came to faith. Obviously I expect my simple argument to be rebuked by someone with a towering intellect, that far over shadows my own, however I have this to say too. Have you ever stopped arguing for a second to think what if He did exist, what if I stopped examining things looking to disprove them (people have tried thousands of times to disprove Jesus, many of which have come to faith, I know some, myself included, and know of more) and instead tried standing on the other side of the fence. Think about it.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Elron]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Perhaps it is intentional that the historical archeological fact of Jesus being here is hidden to many. I am an engineer by trade. I seek only mathematical facts. There is one thing that in my life where facts mean little. Ask any true Christian if Jesus Christ was crucified, placed in a tomb, and walked out of the same tomb three days later, and they will say "Absolutely." I know Jesus was in Israel, and is here today, because He is here within me. Many will call me crazy. Many will call me brainwashed, scholastically challenged (I graduated in the top 5% of a major University in Engineering), or some will say a dreamer. Jesus Christ lives today, and believe it or not, he is performing miracles today. The wind blows, you can't see it, but you know it is there, because you can feel it, you can see it rustle the leaves of the tree. It's there. Jesus is here. Just like He said. He could have come here, and joined the society, or taken over the world, and EVERYONE would know. But Jesus doesn’t work with FACTS. He works with FAITH. He has no need for proofs. Is a human Dad happier when his Son says, “Daddy I love you!” Or would he be happier if someone forced his Son to say, “Daddy I love you!” Is it more to have your son jump from the edge of a pool into your arms knowing that he had faith that you would catch him, or to have someone push him off the edge and hope you would be there? I’d much rather him have the faith in me to be there. You can't see Jesus, but you can feel Him, and you can see His effects on people both good and bad. Look at the country of America. Look at the effect of our society as we have begun persecuting Christians, and if you don't believe the U.S. is persecuting Christians then you might as well stop reading and agree to disagree. Political correctness extends to Islam, atheists, Buddhist, but not Christians. Just recently (within the past year or two) there have been lawsuits to remove nativity scenes at Christmas, and we see our financial sector fall to its knees. I can’t imagine what the U.S. would become if we did what the Bible said! We would have no unemployment to speak of. The Bible says in Malachi, “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Where/how have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me (or, test me) now herewith, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Here God guarantees us prosperity, but we will not follow. One final note, if Jesus isn't alive today, why does His very name cause so much discomfort in the world? You can say, "God!" No one thinks twice. Why do so many people see "red" when someone mentions the name Jesus? He turns the atheist to anger faster than anything. He turns the agnostic to bitter hostility instantly. Why is it that just the mention of His name causes people living in carnal lifestyles to lose their temper instantly? Why does this brief post by some unknown Engineer cause many of you to curse me? Ask me why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible, I can't tell you. Ask me if Jesus Christ is alive and on His throne in 2008, I'll say "Yes, no question about it!"



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Actuall, Loki, I am so new here, and the amount of info is so staggering, I am NOT aware of your opinions on it.

Vatican Council II was meant to bring the Catholic religion closer to the people. It took effect during the early 60s. Being at an impressionalbe age, just entering my teen years, these changs did not sit well. Changing from Latin to English. Changing a lot of the everyday things that went with practicing your faith.
It was too much change for me and a lot of others of my age. And then 11-22-1963, the Assassination happened. I think a whole generation of Catholics went throught this sense of loss because of these two events.
What was meant to bring this religion closer to its members was too much change to young minds. IMHO!



I disagree with your view on this. How can attending masses in a language you don't understand bring you closer to God.? They had some very dangerous practices surrounding the eucharist as well..as in not being able to eat at least 12 hours before mass. (something to that effect|).. They changed it to one hour. Many were driving or walking long a long distance to church,and were improperly nourished for the long trek there,as well as back home..before they had nourishment.

I think a whole generation of catholics felt a sense of loss ,with the abuse of children, and the seeming compliancey towrds it by the church.

I know a few ex- catholics today have abondoned the church for that primary reason,
myself being one of them. Unless you are willing to deal with the real issues of concern in that church ,all the rule changing in the world won't help.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
2000 years ago sure why not, Christ into days world also exists because I am him, No I am not joking and I don't care for any conversation about it either.

I am also not trolling I feel I have contributed to this thread.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The greatest mistake western mankind ever made perhaps was to allow a Middle eastern racist elitist dogmatic collection of writings, to be their central guide on God.
The "Goyom" ..."the unclean"..."the untouchables" they are us the Gentiles.
We were subjugated by the Romans who forced the Jewish spiritual teachings onto the western conquered lands.
We have forgotten , no do not even know our fore fathers knowledge of God?
Who are men to order men in relation to God?
God is God.
If the Jews are his chosen people to guide us the ignorant to him, then just ask the Palestinians how God has treat them.
Jesus Christ is reported to have said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and Love your neighbour as yourself" we do not need Jews to Guide us , as they plot for THEIR messiah to come to earth, all we need is to look inside our hearts and seek HIM.
How? by Faith.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Dr Expired because: Clarity



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   


Science and technology seem to be getting closer to proving it all the time.This is proof enough for me. If I were
ever to need any. Practically a recording of the reserection. If it's not enough for people? Then good luck.
edit on 3-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join