Misconceptions about Jesus Chist

What doesn't sit well with me is that Jesus was sent by God to be born a man (flesh and blood)to show us the way, but then for some reason he is elevated way above me and born of a virgin. how can I relate to that? smacks of all the other deities that were born of a virgin. Jesus was hijacked by Constantine and melded into their religion,that's why this whole thing is so confusing.

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by Hefficide

 

And by the way, I read most of the books in the bible,. and I mean the other books like The Epistle Of Jesus, Enoch I, The book of Adam and Eve, the missing parts of Genesis. I consider myself a true christian because I dont walk around saying "Oh I read the bible", I actually Understand it. You don't get many of those, and when we do, we say that they are against christ.

It needs decades if not an entire life (or more ) to understand the Bible. You seem a little bit to proud to be a real christian, in my opinion. And, I'm sure a real christian doesn't think he is better than the others.
I will add that a real christian questions himself all the time, questions the Bible and can experience doubts about his faith.

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
reply to post by blupblup

 

Its not worth arguing with Texastig. There was already a thread into this authored by a member named Kapyong to which Texastig was spanked quite badly on this topic. I mean BADLY!!

I was not spanked. Kapyong made the assumption that we had to have writings by the disciples themselves to prove that Jesus was real.
You don't have to have first hand evidence.
It is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was real. Peter, Paul and John met Him.

Originally posted by undermind
He allowed people to call him "RabbI".

You can't be a Rabbi unless you're married.


Also, where did he go from the ages of about 8 to 30? There's nothing in the bible about his youth.

One thing I have heard is that he and his brother James and John walked to India and lived in a town there that still has records of them.

Every year the Jews had to go back to Jerusalem for Passover. Jesus and others couldn't have walked that far to get back in time.

reply to post by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy


Go back to earlier posts. I have already told you that I've finished the NT and the OT. I've finished 2/5 books of Enoch. I've finished numerous books on the Books taken out of the bible. NUMEROUS. It seems a little childish that you wouldn't answer the question. Doesn't it seem obvious that God is gender-neutral.? I'm not a druid, but I believe a part of God is in every thing in the universe. That is why he is omniscient and omnipotent, because he is everything. I've read and researched tons, including the religion of Sumeria, some Akkadian, The Egyptian POV of the Israelite reuturn. Hinduism, and I've even studied the different Angels and Demons in most ancient cultures. I've done as much as I can, and have come to the conclusion that the bible doesn't lie. It is truthful, and is the story of the reenactmaent of God, ALMOST EXACTLY what happened in ancient India. I think it is the same actor, portraying a different role. Why did he come to the Jews? He already came to ASIA (Hinduism), AMERICA (Native American creation stories), AFRICA (many different religions, including egyptian), I also believ that we probably had civilization about at least 20,000 years BC. It fits, and everything fits, including the flood stories, the stories of remnant civilization, stories of ancient diasporas etc. It just fits so perfectly. Evolution doesn't fit at all. There are no fits for it. I forgot which, but other species of human were developing alongside the neanderthal, so it seems that there's no way that neanderthal's evolved. I would rather believ in natural selction, and that they just died off.

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
you guys, c'mon....the literary ability of the Bible is off the charts supernatural....nothing comes close babes....it's the only book that addresses the begining of time....and it has the "ONLY" , the only messiah with a promise to return.....

Oh come on,

there are PLENTY of other fairy tale books that begin its story with: "And once upon a time..."

And they all have exactly the same amount of evidence of being real as does the bible. NONE.

But do they have historical data that scholars agree on?

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
you guys, c'mon....the literary ability of the Bible is off the charts supernatural....nothing comes close babes....it's the only book that addresses the begining of time....and it has the "ONLY" , the only messiah with a promise to return.....

It isn't the only book that claims to know the beginning of time.
And it isn't the only book that claims to have a messiah.

Could you expand on that?

There are many other creation stories around the world.
Do you really think Christianity is the first religion?
Qu'ran for example has its own messiah, aswell as idea of how time began.

Originally posted by texastig

But do they have historical data that scholars agree on?

Does yours?
So far all you've said is scholars, you haven't shown any historical data.

reply to post by jeanne75018


Do you understand what the bible is? It is exactly like a history book : Written by different authors, put as simple as we can imagine, open for all who want to learn it. The bible is the history of Jerusalem, not the the world. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand it.

A real christian is someone who reads the bible, and understands the teachings.

A christian is someone who reads the bible , and goes to church, only to grow up an ass**** and have sex with many women or men, being rude to others.

Just because you go to church does not make you a christian. That is why I'm not Catholic. When I realized that the KJV was like a RIPPED video game with things taken out to make it smaller, I left the church to find and read the other books. I've devoted my life to finding out what really happened before 500 AD, during the time of christ, before the flood etc. Im like a Bible historian, but with a more open mind.

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
reply to post by blupblup

 

Its not worth arguing with Texastig. There was already a thread into this authored by a member named Kapyong to which Texastig was spanked quite badly on this topic. I mean BADLY!!

I was not spanked. Kapyong made the assumption that we had to have writings by the disciples themselves to prove that Jesus was real.
You don't have to have first hand evidence.
It is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was real. Peter, Paul and John met Him.

None of those people ever met Jesus.
Please provide evidence that they did.

reply to post by mr10k


I have NO idea if "God" is a female, male, BOTH, or a blue SMURF, or a green ALIEN, or a spaghetti monster!!!

What do you want me to answer?? I haven't seen this "God" in person, so HOW CAN I ANSWER THAT? It would be IRRATIONAL to describe something without SEEING IT.

And the Bible doesnt lie???? How do you explain the hundreds of CONTRADICTIONS throughout the book? Either one is a LIE, and the other truth, or its a SILLY book written by MAN who CLAIMS its from God.

If it is from God, then that makes God sound rather non-credible in my book to say ONE thing and then say ANOTHER thing HUNDREDS of times!

reply to post by Blue Shift


Can you show me your source(s)?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What facts did you see and what historical data is this that you keep referring to? Forget the evidence that Jesus existed... what is the evidence that anybody "rose from the dead"?

It is historical data that all scholars agree upon.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No more unsupported claims and vague references to "scholars" and "historians", no more bogus percentage figures..... pony up the historical data and evidence proving the existence of Jesus

Gary Habermas, in his book, "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope", has compiled the most comprehensive investigation on what scholars believe about the Resurrection. He collected over 1400 critical scholarly works on the topic written from 1975 to 2003. In his book, he shows that basically all scholars (from the extreme liberal to extreme conservative) agree on the following facts:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
3. Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
9. The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.
12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Habermas and Licona explain that even "the majority of nonbelieving scholars" (p. 149) accept such facts, not just Christian scholars.
(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004], pp. 60, 70)

reply to post by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy



Look. It's better to just take everything written in the OT as fact, because it's pretty blatantly right. You can accept SOME of the NT but it has been mostly edited by the Early Church. Please Note that there were more than 700 books to begin with, Most were burned, down to ~79, which were filtered, and compressed into the KJV. Just look at the above PDF and read up. I dont know if that is the right one though. I will link you to mine.

I'm going to sday this once (FOR THE LAST TIME!!!)

***PLEASE! SKEPTIC AGNOSTIC, ATHEISTS WHATEVER, CAN YOU SHOW US YOUR SOURTCES? BECAUSE SO FAR ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS SAY GIVE US EVIDENCE OF JESUS' EXISTENCE AND YOU YOURSELVES HAVE NOT PUT UP SOURCES TO SAY HE DIDN'T EXIST. IF I GET A DOCUMENT FROM THE YEAR 2000 BC SAYING GOD IS A FAKE ENTITY CREATED BY US TO *snip* WITH EVERYBODY, THEN I'LL STOP[ BEING A CHRISTIAN. BUT SO FAR, I HAVE YET TO HEAR OF THAT DOCUMENT***


[edit on 25-8-2010 by mr10k]


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by texastig


It's funny I just keep hearing ridiculous rhetoric from people who want to deny Christ's existence.

"It doesn't matter what you say and cite, there is no evidence....ya ya ay ..."

When the only people I see citing any references are those that purport that there is evidence.

I wonder if anyone even bothers to follow the links that you provide that gives the source material.

They're obviously not responding directly to it, because they keep spouting the same old "bollocks" of there not being any evidence for it.

Follow the links fools, quit just accepting nonsensical ramblings of those who tell you what you want to hear, i.e. that there is no non-christian historical reference to Jesus' existence.

This topic has been so derailed already it's sad.


Oh well. I've come to expect it from the atheists, especially those who are confused between logical evaluation and desire of belief...lol Traditional drummer has got to be the worst in regards this.

Jaden

Originally posted by Blue Shift
* Jesus was an Egyptian.
* Jesus's father, Joseph, was a high-ranking Jewish leader in the city of Alexandria.
* Jesus studied esoteric texts at the Library of Alexandria and was later left by his family in Jerusalem to study at an unusually young age.
* Jesus was a distant nephew of Herod, more closely related to Salome.
* Jesus borrowed many of his teachings from John the Baptist, who was also a cousin.
* Salome had John the Baptist beheaded to show him her devotion to Jesus.
* The Pharisee Annas, who was at the Trial of Jesus, had his son killed by Jesus when Jesus was a child.
* Jesus often appeared to his Disciples disguised as different people, and it sometimes took them a while to recognize him.
* Jesus claimed to be a greater sorcerer than Solomon.
* The crown of thorns was placed on Jesus's head not as a torture but to hold the demons within him so they could be properly destroyed.

Do you have any scholarly historical evidence for that? I've never heard of that before.

Originally posted by Annee
I would like to read them. Word phrasing is of interest to me.

Gary Habermas, in his book, "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope", has compiled the most comprehensive investigation on what scholars believe about the Resurrection. He collected over 1400 critical scholarly works on the topic written from 1975 to 2003. In his book, he shows that basically all scholars (from the extreme liberal to extreme conservative) agree on the following facts:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
3. Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
9. The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.
12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy

 

Look. It's better to just take everything written in the OT as fact, because it's pretty blatantly right. You can accept SOME of the NT but it has been mostly edited by the Early Church. Please Note that there were more than 700 books to begin with, Most were burned, down to ~79, which were filtered, and compressed into the KJV. Just look at the above PDF and read up. I dont know if that is the right one though. I will link you to mine.

I'm going to sday this once (FOR THE LAST TIME!!!)

***PLEASE! SKEPTIC AGNOSTIC, ATHEISTS WHATEVER, CAN YOU SHOW US YOUR SOURTCES? BECAUSE SO FAR ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS SAY GIVE US EVIDENCE OF JESUS' EXISTENCE AND YOU YOURSELVES HAVE NOT PUT UP SOURCES TO SAY HE DIDN'T EXIST. IF I GET A DOCUMENT FROM THE YEAR 2000 BC SAYING GOD IS A FAKE ENTITY CREATED BY US TO F*** WITH EVERYBODY, THEN I'LL STOP[ BEING A CHRISTIAN. BUT SO FAR, I HAVE YET TO HEAR OF THAT DOCUMENT***


[edit on 25-8-2010 by mr10k]

If that's true, why didn't the OT talk about the germ theory of disease, it could have saved billions of lives, aswell as a variety of issues, it's really not the be all end all of books if it didn't include such things.

Oh, and you can't prove a negative, but just to show you, how about you try to prove that Bob Smith didn't exist 350 years ago.

The burden of proof is on you that jesus existed, then we can go onto whether or not he was God.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by texastig

But do they have historical data that scholars agree on?

Does yours?
So far all you've said is scholars, you haven't shown any historical data.

Gary Habermas, in his book, "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope", has compiled the most comprehensive investigation on what scholars believe about the Resurrection. He collected over 1400 critical scholarly works on the topic written from 1975 to 2003. In his book, he shows that basically all scholars (from the extreme liberal to extreme conservative) agree on the following facts:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
3. Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
9. The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.
12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by texastig

But do they have historical data that scholars agree on?

Does yours?
So far all you've said is scholars, you haven't shown any historical data.

Gary Habermas, in his book, "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope", has compiled the most comprehensive investigation on what scholars believe about the Resurrection. He collected over 1400 critical scholarly works on the topic written from 1975 to 2003. In his book, he shows that basically all scholars (from the extreme liberal to extreme conservative) agree on the following facts:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
3. Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
9. The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.
12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Ok, so what EVIDENCE has he used to come to this conclusion.
You can't just point at a scholar and say "see, he believes this, he seems smart, therefore it must be true" that's an appeal to authority.
We're looking for evidence, not just a scholars word.
And furthur, how does he know what the opinion of "basically all scholars" is?