Checking a bible fact

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
But lest you forget let me remind you of just to in the last 30 years. Jim Jones of Jonestown fame, and David Koresh of Waco fame. Then there
are those like westboro baptist and jack chick.

Jim Jones - 1978
David Koresh - 1993
Jesus - 33

I mean David Koresh can't even keep a church together after 13 years?
People aren't writing Jim Jones hymns after a mere 28 years?

Considering the current status of these three figures, I feel comfortable arguing that there is something significant about Jesus and his staying power.

Not being fecetious here: how would you explain that out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who have claimed to be God and then died, only Jesus has remained a front-and-center religious figure? I mean the "establishment" could have guided the heard much easier by making Mirthra or Helios their god of choice back then instead of some wacko bastardizing the Jewish religion, couldn't they?

My solution is that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead.
That's how I reconcile it.

But I'm sincerely curious to hear your explanation.

Originally posted by Essedarius



Not being fecetious here: how would you explain that out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who have claimed to be God and then died, only Jesus has remained a front-and-center religious figure? I mean the "establishment" could have guided the heard much easier by making Mirthra or Helios their god of choice back then instead of some wacko bastardizing the Jewish religion, couldn't they?

My solution is that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead.
That's how I reconcile it.

I agree. However, no matter what is said or done, we will never truly know (barring time travel that will not affect the future ) what happened 2000 years ago. So, that being said, I would refrain (Enkidu) from bashing religion if I were you, who knows how that might come back to haunt you in the afterlife

[edit on 7/7/06 by Mouth]

Originally posted by Essedarius



Not being fecetious here: how would you explain that out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who have claimed to be God and then died, only Jesus has remained a front-and-center religious figure? I mean the "establishment" could have guided the heard much easier by making Mirthra or Helios their god of choice back then instead of some wacko bastardizing the Jewish religion, couldn't they?

My solution is that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead.
That's how I reconcile it.

It is ONLY, ONLY, because Rome decided to make it (in a vote) its official religion. Thus, it became the western world's religion. It is not because Jesus is infact the son of God, or anything of that like. It was a happenstance of politics which rose a small cult into the mainstream of western society. And once it had that power, it's reign grew as it spread it's teachings through the violence of the inquisition and the destruction of several cultures.

Simple History.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
It is ONLY, ONLY, because Rome decided to make it (in a vote) its official religion. Thus, it became the western world's religion. It is not because Jesus is infact the son of God, or anything of that like. It was a happenstance of politics which rose a small cult into the mainstream of western society. And once it had that power, it's reign grew as it spread it's teachings through the violence of the inquisition and the destruction of several cultures.

Simple History.

Ouch. That hurt.

How come writers have to ruin all the fun? j/k


Didn't even think about that, WoW

Nice input

Originally posted by WolfofWar
It was a happenstance of politics which rose a small cult into the mainstream of western society. And once it had that power, it's reign grew as it spread it's teachings through the violence of the inquisition and the destruction of several cultures.

Sorry Wolf, I'm not buying it.

I still think that there has to be some substance to a religion for it to hold that kind of sway. I won't argue that Christianity has not been misused in the past...without a doubt I would lose that argument going away...but to throw out the legitimacy of faith because man has decided to bastardize it is a mistake.

There are a million ways to manipulate the people. If there is absolutely no legitimacy in religion...if it is not a link to God, but a completely hollow practice of the ignorant... then why on earth would it not fall off the skin of Western civilization like a dry scab after a couple hundred years?

Nope, if religion was a hoax it would have gone the way of the Ford Pinto.
There are too many other ways to exert power.

Wolfofwar, very very well said. I was going to say something like that but I think you said it better.
A large portion of the arguement seems to have developed into that 'christianity has survived so long because it has gods blessing' kinda arguement.

Well i feel there are a few factors there that can't be overlooked..
Most importantly is Wolfofwars point. Some things stay with us throughout the centuries, and some don't. It just so happens that christianity has survived. Would it have, without the brute force tactics used by people in power throughout the years? I'd love to know.

Also christianity isn't the only religion, many have survived quite awhile. It just comes down to culture culture culture. Where you are, who your parents are, your psychology, and what you want and need to believe.

I always think that we can debate the history of it until the stars fall, but I also think.....why should something as perfect as god need debating. Something given to us by god is not supposed to be this way.
Einstein said ' If the answer is simple, you know god is speaking'
And i think I see it, in nature and the universe, and the perfect construction of them via atoms and gravity, time and space.
Not a....debated, edited, time twisted book.
That's what it comes down to for me.

I decided to edit this and add a little more
I would like to explian that the main reason for my aversion to religion is that
I am very careful in what i believe in. I refuse to knowingly accept information into my belief system which could limit me in some ways, preventing further growth and understanding.
I believe that religion has limited humanities growth somewhat.
Wrongful thinking leads to wrongful action.
Even if the majority of todays christians are peaceful, many are still lacking some basic understanding of the TRUE meaning of kindness and love.
I am sure you have all encountered people such as these, both christian and nonchristian. It is up to the individual to learn these things for themselves, and i don't believe religion can help that. If taken too literaly, it will hinder it.
If not to be taken literaly, why follow it at all!!!

For this reason, my belief system is very wide open to new information, but very critical of what comes in. Almost everything is flexible, as who really knows the true nature of reality? Like I mentioned before, if we did discover we were some aliens experiment in a bubble, I would not be the least affected because I have set up my belief system to be so flexible.
Those with hard set religious beliefs will be shattered.
My point in saying this is inflexible beliefs will cause problems. And to me it seems religion does not teach flexibility. In order for you to follow any particular religion you must first believe in some authoritive figure, without compromise and go from there. This in itself is inflexible.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by T0by]

Originally posted by Essedarius
Sorry Wolf, I'm not buying it.

I still think that there has to be some substance to a religion for it to hold that kind of sway. I won't argue that Christianity has not been misused in the past...without a doubt I would lose that argument going away...but to throw out the legitimacy of faith because man has decided to bastardize it is a mistake.

There are a million ways to manipulate the people. If there is absolutely no legitimacy in religion...if it is not a link to God, but a completely hollow practice of the ignorant... then why on earth would it not fall off the skin of Western civilization like a dry scab after a couple hundred years?

Nope, if religion was a hoax it would have gone the way of the Ford Pinto.
There are too many other ways to exert power.

I didnt say it was a hoax, first of all. I said that the reason it expanded was NOT because it was divine. It was due to politics.

Remember Rome? The jewel of the modern western world? That spanned from jerusalem up to even germany (theres actually Roman relics in Austria) and even Britian. Thats the ENTIRE western world. THE ENTIRE western world.

If you make a religion the official religion of the ENTIRE WESTERN world, what happens?

the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD starts to believe in it.

Its as simple as that. Thats what carried it on from a small cult, with many similar savior cults fighting for power, to ruler of the western world.

And even if it wasnt true, as you seemed to summerize, its because its something thats intangible. Remember your religion is not based on FACT, its based on Faith. It ANYTHING in christianity could be proven, it would not be a religion, it would be history. Its all based on Faith. And that faith is routed in 2,000 years of peoples beliefs. That will be impossible to break, even if it was fake.


The "Because its here this long its real" theory does not cut it.


If you want to look at a religion that spread about the real way, amazingly enough, look at mine, buddhism. It was taught by one man, in india, whom travelled all over in his life, teaching the knowledge he had obtainedfrom enlightenment. And the followers believed it well enough to carry it about all over the eastern world, and even to parts of the western world.

By the way wolfofwar, does buddhism have any violent history?

Originally posted by T0by
By the way wolfofwar, does buddhism have any violent history?

A bit.

But most of our extremism fights amongst eachother (rarely) or we do it upon ourselves (remember the self burning protests in vietnam?)

Burning yourself isn't really counted : )
I'd say that's proof right there what you can achieve with different ways of thinking. They say mind over matter. I love how buddhism teaches all of that, it is a more productive way of thinking.

Any way you look at it, if you light anyone else there is no way they could have sat there quietly burning like that without some special state of spiritual awareness.
I may be ignorant in stating this but i do take that as some kind of confirmation of the effectiveness of buddhism.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

I said that the reason it expanded was NOT because it was divine. It was due to politics.

Remember Rome? The jewel of the modern western world?

Yeah...I think...that was the place where they slaughtered all the Christians, right?
(I mean, you have to admit that it was a pretty improbably comeback on the part of Christianity. Divine even.)

And even if it wasnt true, as you seemed to summerize, its because its something thats intangible. Remember your religion is not based on FACT, its based on Faith. It ANYTHING in christianity could be proven, it would not be a religion, it would be history.

Again, I think you're throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater here. Any document that is pointed out as discussing the life of Jesus is immediately attacked as being a fraud or rewritten or actually referring to the 20 people wandering around Galilee who all happened to be named Yeshua the Messiah.

So are you saying that Jesus, Paul, Peter, Simon, Mary...they all are fake? Or just Jesus? Or God too? Buddhists believe that Jesus existed, but that he was just a decent guy as opposed to divine, yes?

Anyhoo, I am perfectly content with agreeing that a leap of faith is part of any religion, but I'm done apologizing for the fact that I can't produce a polaroid of Jesus...

If you want to look at a religion that spread about the real way, amazingly enough, look at mine, buddhism.

I got nothing but love for Buddhists. If I didn't believe in totally fabricated Jesus, I would be one, no doubt. As a rule, Buddhists are a million times gentler, kinder, and nicer than Christians.

I say "as a rule" becuase every now and again you'll run into one that decides to spit venom all over your beliefs. But that's pretty rare.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Yeah...I think...that was the place where they slaughtered all the Christians, right?
(I mean, you have to admit that it was a pretty improbably comeback on the part of Christianity. Divine even.)

Not to my knowledge, no.There was some fighting, but in the end the Christian cult grew enough that it rioting within Rome against the Roman religion. Constantine didn't know what to do, and to quench the fury, he made Christianity the Official Roman Religion. If anything, the Christians were slaughtering romans.

Again, I think you're throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater here. Any document that is pointed out as discussing the life of Jesus is immediately attacked as being a fraud or rewritten or actually referring to the 20 people wandering around Galilee who all happened to be named Yeshua the Messiah.

Thats because some people are adamently against Christianity. But the fact remains, its not a HISTORICAL document, its a Theological document. And Many historians, still today, are debating whether it was a real historical context, a retelling of an old story, or just a theological idealogy. The debate is there, its not being made up, because in 2,000 years later, theres not much proof one way or the other.

So are you saying that Jesus, Paul, Peter, Simon, Mary...they all are fake? Or just Jesus? Or God too? Buddhists believe that Jesus existed, but that he was just a decent guy as opposed to divine, yes?

Did I ever say they were all fake? And Buddhists believe many things, depending on what you believe. We believe in the search for knowledge and enlightenment. Those that believe Jesus did exist tend to believe he was infact a Buddha, an enlightened figure.

Anyhoo, I am perfectly content with agreeing that a leap of faith is part of any religion, but I'm done apologizing for the fact that I can't produce a polaroid of Jesus...

Don't apologize to anyone, You believe what you believe, just as I believe what I believe, and they believe what they beleive. Proof is not needed, if you believe it in your heart. And you should not be running around trying to proove something thats intangible, its leading you away from the core of your religion.

I say "as a rule" becuase every now and again you'll run into one that decides to spit venom all over your beliefs. But that's pretty rare.

Depends on what you say by spit venom. Stating ones beliefs in contrast to another wouldnt be spitting venom. But all together, Buddhists in general let you believe what you want to believe. We believe if you are willing and ready, you will come to buddhism.

And if you think I am actually attacking christianity, I am not, I am just merely stating some historical fact.

the earlist gospel (mark I believe) was written down around 80 AD or there abouts...I highly recommend Robin Lane Foxes "Unauthorized Version":truth and fiction in the Bible. His "Pagans and Christians" :Religion and the religious life from the 2nd to the 4th centuries, is awesome.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
There was some fighting, but in the end the Christian cult grew enough that it rioting within Rome against the Roman religion. Constantine didn't know what to do, and to quench the fury, he made Christianity the Official Roman Religion. If anything, the Christians were slaughtering romans.

That, Wolf, is the most fascinating interpretation of 4th century Rome that I've ever heard. Constantine was fighting Maxentius at the time (who was a pagan).

This is a perfect example of a gray area in history (the conversion of Constantine to Christianity) where there is questionable evidence on both sides, and you have simply defaulted to "the evil christian cult took over western civilization."

That's why I'm going to stick to my initial assessment that you are not stating anything historical but are, in fact, choosing to claim the gray areas of history as a battlefield to attack Christianity. I know you say you don't have an axe to grind but you just protest to much, methinks.

That said, I respect Buddhism immensely, and wish you well.

I am well versed in this and I have never heard any of that...christians rioting? 100 years after constintine yes but not in 310 or there abouts.

Originally posted by Enkidu

Why would people choose to die for a fad...not just in the first century when it would have been relatively easy to debunk...but in the 2nd, the 3rd, the 17th, the 21st?

You have to provide me a with a decent reason why people over the last 2000 years have decided to back this particular (completely made up) horse.

There has to be something sustaining there.

People choose to blow themselves up in the name of Allah does that make the Koran historically true? People have chosen to die in the name of Allah for almost as long as people have died in the name of Christ does that make both sides right?

Originally posted by Terra Serranum
People choose to blow themselves up in the name of Allah does that make the Koran historically true? People have chosen to die in the name of Allah for almost as long as people have died in the name of Christ does that make both sides right?

I think dying for a cause is very different than killing for a cause.

I don't think that a suicide bombing is an accurate representation of Islam any more than I think the crusades or an abortion clinic bombing is an accurate depiction of Christianity.

But yes, I absolutely think that Islam is rooted in a very legitimate place...that is to say, I have a hunch that people praying to Allah and people praying to Jesus are dialing the same number.

All of the New Testament Books were written within decades of Jesus' death, because you can see who wrote them, like Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew, Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and The Acts, and Paul wrote many of the epistles, all them who wrote the New Testament lived not too long after Jesus' death, so they couldn't have been written later then the people who wrote them died.

Originally posted by Terra Serranum

People choose to blow themselves up in the name of Allah does that make the Koran historically true? People have chosen to die in the name of Allah for almost as long as people have died in the name of Christ does that make both sides right?

Christians who died in the name of Christ didn't kill themselves, they were given the choice to either deny their faith and live, or die. The ones who chose to die did because they couldn't deny what they knew was the absolute truth.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by the_blue_sky11]

[edit on 7-7-2006 by the_blue_sky11]

the bible has been written over more time's than any other book in history, "Don't get me wrong", every one should have a belief system i norder, but at the same time, there should be "Relivance" brought to the table for the pounding quedtion's we have abouy such belief's. but to go a head and incoorperate the validity of such thing's, you have a lot more studying the the majority do!!
(1) Rewritten over and over through out the centuries.
(2) No validation on any of the topic's, except Jesus was a real walking and breathing individual.
(3) stories of the truth kept from us and with the highest of consent's, (VATICAN) kept from our knowledge.
(4) They have "NO!!" intention of letting us know the whole story of the man they called "Jesus" ever.

So, if you are interested to the point of wanting to know what has happened to "Our Great Belief System", you will enjoy this for sure.

www.wisdomworld.org...