jesus was a nazarene, they were vegans, these scriptures today have been altered, vegans were thrown too the fire and priests exiled if they did not eat meat.
@laflugantabastardo according to the earliest souces he never ate the lamb, that was inserted in by the catholci church editors who persecuted the priests who refused to eat meat. as a nazarene which jesus was he would never eat a innocent animal.
One has to wonder what he then ate for Passover, as lamb was part of the Passover meal. There's also that part where Jesus ate fish. But perhaps the fish was not innocent.
@laflugantabastardo the scriptures the describe him eating a innocent animal was inserted by the catholic church animal abusing murdering scum and now every human since birth is taught to eat cows and pigs and chickens, and dogs and cats are exempt from the murder cause theyre cute and cuddly.
The Paradox: 1) Josephus did not live during the time of Jesus. 2) There is PLENTY of evidence from Josephus writing that he simply reported from another source or rather heresay. 3) He never accepted Christianity and rather claimed someone else as "messiah". 4) The concept of "messiah" for Jews is NOT similar to the Christian concept of "messiah". The true concept,the Jewish one, is to say that the "messiah" is human and not a god!
Unicorn is a Horse, the horn represented the Phallus. and the Latin for Horse is "Ippos", and its the Symbol for the House of "Calpurnius Piso", you will find 4 Horsemen in Revelations e.g. Ippos-Men, whom are 4 Piso Men, Josephus (Josepos) real name was Arrius C. Piso, always PSO, gOSPol, ePIStle, CHRIST (p = r) cPISt. Riiver PISOn, Genesis, fake River added by Roman Piso. You not intelligent enough to understand
The only evidence this video provides is for the Christians, not for Jesus himself
By that reasoning, I should take War of the Worlds as proof for the existence of Martians, since it takes place in 1890's London & we have historical accounts of London's existence in the 1890's
I don't have a problem with the idea that this person we call "Jesus" did live. That a charismatic drifter and gifted orator really did influence and affect the lives and minds of so many people that heard of him. I'm quite willing to believe that's true. I simply don't believe that his existence means that any supernatural qualities attributed to him in texts about him *must* be true just because he was alive. He was a man, not a wizard.
@chubbm Well since Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He is God the Son and it is not too difficult to believe that He was able to perform many miracles.
@1954phyllis You have to make a leap of logic to believe that he was the son of a god and god at the same time and born from a virgin woman (a detail caused by a mistranslation from the Aramaic word for young woman to the Greek word for virgin by the way) and also had magical powers (one Gospel that was written but not included has Jesus as a child transforming people into goats). I can write a book saying things about me too. It doesn't make them true when read thousands of years later.
The Bible is not the word of God. Well some of it is, but a lot of it is the conjuring of Man. I didn't realize that you were pro Christianity, otherwise, I would have withheld my comment. I don't believe, you do. You also believe I will be burnt as a tare. Whatever. God Bless you too.
to know fully what father god teaches, one must use th king james bible. all others have been adulterated, because we are in the end days. many verses and words have either been deleted, or altered into political corrwectness. the modern churches and seminaries in these days teach herisy. God does not change with the times.the NEW KING JAMES IS A HERISY, THE NIV IS AND ABOMONATION! JESUS IS COMING YOU WILL SEE HIM SOON! THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM FATHER GOD. STUDY, AND SEEK THE KINGDOM OF GOD REPENT
@godwithme777 The King James version is just as flawed. There were mistranslations and conflicts with scripture before it got even close to the King James translation.
jimmyeatfood 1911..EAT THOU SPIRITUAL FOOD, THE BREAD OF LIFE. WOE TO YOU PAGANS WHO SCOFF AT GOD, BUT KNOW NOT WHAT YOU DO! WOULD YOU RATHER WALLOW IN YOUR FILTHY WAYS, AND REFUSE TO HARKEN UNTO THE WORD OF GOD, AND BE BURNT AS TARES IN THE SOON TO COME JUDGEMENT? ALL YOUR BOOKS ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU ARE UNDER A GREAT DECEPTION! THIS JESUS YOU DENY IS COMING TO THIS PLANET SOON. YOU WILL SEE HIM! REPENT BEFORE YOU WILL SUFFER THE PANGS OF HELL. THIS MESSAGE TO YOU IS FROM GOD!
A man called Christ, not a man called Jesus. If there was a man named Jesus, who was proclaimed Christ ostensibly by some institution, he must have had a last name. It would either have been his mother Mary's or his fathers name. but it Joseph, or Pantheous.(sp). What is presented in this video is very poor evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. History can't even confirm what his name was. I'm m more and more inclined to believe this man existed and was a genius but not the son of God.
@lessermystery "FORTHE NATURAL MAN (HUMANS WHO ARE SPIRITUALLY DEAD, AND WILL BE BURNT AS TARES) RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE WORD OF GOD, FOR IT IS AS FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM, NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, FOR THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED".
SPIRITUAL IGNORQANCE WILL BE NO EXCUSE FOR SPIRITUAL MATTERS. GOD IS NOT MOCKED, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CONFIRMS AND REGENERATES HUMANS TO THEIR ORIGINALSPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL GENOME. WE NEVER DIE, JUST RECEIVE A NEW "CONTAINER". THIS IS NO THEORY, OR MYTH.
the fact that historians accurately accounted for the DOCTRINE of Christianity is just evidence that they were aware of christians, it is not evidence that the accounts of biblical jesus are in any way historically accurate.
Tacitus' testimony is worthless. He mentions Christians and Christ hinting that Jesus is a real person, but lets not forget the Tacitus probably thought Romulus was a real person too. The same Romulus who disappears and is thought to be murdered by the Senate until someones says that they saw him caught up and speak from heaven. If Tacitus' testimony about Jesus is evidence then Romulus and Remus are real too?
This isn't testimony, any more than the Bible is, to Jesus's existence. These documents were probably much influenced by word of mouth. I doubt very much that Tacitus even saw Jesus. This isn't to say he didn't exist. He might have but he just wasn't a divine gift from Yahweh or any other supposed god.
No one knows for sure, not even science. Obviously, somehow, some way, matter was created from pure energy in the formation stage of the Universe. If 'the heavens" were created first as Genesis orders, then other solar systems, stars, planets, etc existed before our solar system and earth came into being as Genesis orders. So stars, a part of "the heavens", HAD to be there before earth's atmosphere formed to reveal them on Creation Day 4.
@Futureplanet All the photos and videos I've seen of Space show stars. Using an advanced telescope such as Hubble to look deep into Space reveals solar systems, black holes, stars living, dying and dead.
Creation Day 4 is when the Sun, Moon and stars first appeared in Earth's sky. Up until that time the earth was forming, likely enveloped in mists gasses, etc, similar to Venus presently. When Earth's life-sustaining atmosphere finally developed, the skies cleared to reveal Sun, Moon, Stars.
@glnelson1956 This is just downright ridiculous. The bible says.... on the 4th day, God made the stars. Not what was visible from Earth. THAT HE MADE THE STARS.
You may want to think the "heavens" means including stars, but you NOT following your own bible.
The bible is not an astronomy book. It's just wrong. There is no misinterpretation, so stop trying to spin this in your favor. Day 1 Heavens and Earth (space sky Earth). Day 4 stars
@Futureplanet If the Heavens were created first, as Genesis clearly says, then the stars had to be there, because the stars are part of the heavens. The fact that the stars were not visible in the Earth sky until later only means the Earth's sky was not yet evolved and formed for them to be visible. Again, in modern science thinking, this would be the case in Earth's Primordial state, long prior to even primitive plant life forming.
@glnelson1956 You must know you are trying to spin this. Shame the bible doesn't say, In the begging god made the stars, but they not visible from Earth!
The bible is NOT about what is visible from Earth. you are just making this up. This is a desperate attempt to try and make sense of what is cleary not right.
So, please explain to me. Why does god MAKE THE STARS on the 4TH day, if they already existed?
Will you just stop already. You've lost this debate.
@Futureplanet Again, you are either too dense, or too biased to see it and that is not my problem. I have said clearly time and time again that the "Heavens" or "Space as we commonly call it today has solar systems, stars, etc. Genesis clearly said it came first. By day 4 in Genesis, Earth's atmosphere had formed to the point that stars, sun and moon are visible. Science pretty well agrees with that sequence of events.
This is the 3rd time I've described my understanding of Genesis to you
CONT: Now if you are too stupid to understand plain English, that it your problem. I cannot educate a moron via the comments section of Youtube.
That you are a narrow-minded fool is becoming more and more evident. It appears your tiny little brain simply cannot conceive of a view different than your own. Repeatedly I have said I respect your view, but I see things far differently.
Now, is the gray matter stirring or do you require a 4th repeat explanation of Genesis as I see it?
@glnelson1956 I am not too dense to see you are talking utter nonsense. We KNOW the heavens (aka space) contains stars.
The question is, when did god MAKE THE STARS. According to the bible, on the 4th day. Why don't you read it. You are talking utter crap. Saying that becuase they are visible from earth on the 4th day, that is what is meant by "on the 4th day God made the stars".
So, you are saying God is trapped on Earth, and only says he makes stars on the 4th day, because he sees them?
@Futureplanet Your bigotry and bias simply close your mind. You want to force everyone to see things your way. You are not content to allow others to have their own view, your view MUST be rammed down their throat.
Just because YOU can't see something that others can, doesn't; mean its wrong.
Just means your mind can't comprehend it, for reasons of biased blindness, or simple mental limitations.
@Futureplanet You may not be able to see it or comprehend, but the brief descriptions in Genesis on the formation of the universe and of how Primordial Earth appeared until its sky and atmosphere developed, make a lot of sense. Particularly if you read modern scientific thought and theory on the phases of Primordial Earth as it developed.
800 million years ago, the planet was so warm that it was enveloped in dense clouds and nothing would have been visible in the sky, but stars existed!
@glnelson1956 I think you could show a touch of honesty and humility, and just admit, the bible says "God made the stars on the 4th day" How clearer does it need to be written.
It would be honest of you to stop trying to spread lies and nonsense about what other meaning "god made the stars on the 4th day" actually means.
Which according to your lies, means stars are visible from earth on the 4th day. Such a silly childish argument to avoid the truth.
@Futureplanet I think you should just accept the fact that I see things far differently than you. My reading of Genesis is a valid interpretation of the very brief description of the origin of the Universe and Earth. You may disagree, and see things differently, and that I have no problem with. You view is yours and does not affect me. I respect your right to see things your way, but don't expect me to agree with you.
A mature way to handle this is to "agree to disagree".
@Futureplanet And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule by day, and the lesser luminary to rule by night; and the stars.
(the two great luminaries being of course the sun and the moon). But I guess the sun he made on day 1, and when it says god made two great luminaries, it means, "of the two luminaries, the one made to govern the day, actually made on day 1, despite being so bring, wasn't visible till now, depsite light taking 8 min. to reach the earth from the sun"
@Futureplanet Primordial Earth's surface was so warm that it was enveloped in constant cloud cover. The sky as we know it today did not exist, and from the Earth's surface, no stars, sun or moon could possibly be seen. Until Earth's surface cooled sufficiently over many millions of years, the sun had little- to-no effect on Earth's surface temperatures. There would have been no animal life of any type at this time, only gradually evolving simple plant life.
CONT: When Primordial Earth's surface cooled to the point the solid cloud cover could break, then the sky would be visible and the sun could begin to have an effect on Earth's surface temperatures. The skies would then begin to resemble what we see today. Sunlight constantly on the Earth's surface would be a catalyst to evolve the primitive plant life into more and more complex plants over millions more years until the first primitive animal life appeared in the oceans.
CONT: The process of Earth geologic development to primitive-to-complex plant development described in the two previous comments occurred up to about 600 million years ago. Somewhere around 580-600 million years ago, primitive animal life first appeared in the oceans.
This is roughly geologic-and-life-development on Earth, per modern Science, depending upon which of several theories you choose to follow.
The Genesis account is amazingly close to modern Scientific thought on the matter.
CONT: To put Genesis into the timeline of Earth Development, would look something like this:
Creation Day 1 ended about 4.5 Billion years ago with the formation of the Earth from material revolving around the sun. Creation Day 2 ended about 4.1 Billion years ago with ocean formation. Creation Day 3 ended about 3 billion years ago with simple plants. Creation Day 4 ended about 600 million years ago with ozone layer formation. The sky was now normal with visible sun,moon and stars.
CONT: Creation Day 5 ended about 350 million years ago with the arrival of major ocean life and flying insects on land. The Earth at this point would be recognizable to modern man with abundant plant and insect life on land. Creation Day 6 ended about 200,000 years ago with the arrival of modern man.
Genesis 1: 1-31 may not be as detailed as you want, but its description of Earth life development follows modern Scientific theory accurately to an amazing degree!
And god made the stars on the 4th day....actually means:
"gases in the Earth's surface cleared and now the stars were visible"
I am such a gullible fool, that I will fall for your descriptions of the bible stating clearly that "god made the stars on the 4th day" as the BIBLE describes it, is actually meaning the visibility of stars, and not GOD MAKING the stars.
This is about the biggest spin I have ever heard. Can you really believe it???
@Futureplanet Uncomfortable to have your lies, distortions and half-truths tossed back in your face?
The Earth sky that you and I see today did not even exist until 350 million years ago. The formation of that sky as a clear window to "the Heavens" did not happen until 600 million years ago. Modern Science itself says that.
The sun, moon and stars would not exist to a person standing on Earth's surface 700 million years ago.
@Futureplanet Now, I've gone to the trouble of carefully laying out Scientific thought on Earth's development, side-by-side with Genesis 1: 1-31, from 4.5 Billion years ago up to man's arrival 200,000 years ago.
You've laid out sarcastic stupidity along with lies, distortions and half-truths, and little else. I suspect you are as clueless as you appear.
Others reading our comments can easily see where truth exists. In that regard Futureplanet, you've been very useful.
@Futureplanet this comment proves glnelson1956's saying your words are "lies, distortions, and half-truths". You even read his comments? He's got a pretty good case that Genesis & Science agree. All you do is whine & twist words. You ain't laid out nothing as detailed as comparing Genesis/Science like glnelson1956.
He's kicked your butt into the stratosphere, Boy, and you're too damn dumb to know it.
@coltperc And, how did he do that? By misquoting the bible to your liking? Day 1. light Day 2. Firmament (skies) Day 3. Earth and sea Day 4. Sun, Moon and Stars Day 5. Living creatures Day 6. livestock and humans Day 7. Rest. This is the order in the bible. This is NOT an interpretation. This is the written words in black and white. Day 4, actually says god made the stars. glnelson says stars are made on day 1. But, GOD says day 4 in teh bible. Pick up a bible and read it for yourself
@Futureplanet I have read Genesis enough to see you are twisting words to your liking. glnelson says the stars and such existed from the creation of the heavens on day 1, but were not visible on earth til day 4 as Genesis says. It don't say God MADE the stars on Day 4, (just says he made sun&moon&stars also, not WHEN) & says he put them in the sky with the sun&moon on Day 4 to make signs & days & so forth. Meaning on Day 4 God let the heavens show on earth.
@Futureplanet I don't agree with these Christian misreadings of Genesis 1, any more than I agree with your misreadings of Genesis 1. You are both totally off base about what Genesis says.
@glnelson1956 Because when scientists talk about the formation of black holes, or super nova, they say that the day they are formed is when they suddenly become visible.
That's why all galaxies only formed 50 years ago. Because before then, we couldn't see them.
So, if a scientist says, galaxies formed billions of years ago, that ACTUALLY mean, because our telescopes advanced 50 years ago, now they are visible, hence they are made 50 years ago.
Folks can check my previous comments for a detailed description of how the modern Scientific timeline of Earth's development clearly demonstrates the amazing accuracy of Genesis 1: 1-31.
The rant you've thoughtfully provided here Futureplanet, is a useful illustration of how those of your type use lies, distortions and half-truths to deceive. All that's needed is to compare your rant here against my comments to see your lies in living color.
@glnelson1956 Folks can see your spin. The bible says clearly. Sun, Earth and Stars made on Day 4. Heavens and Earth day 1. Doesn't say anything about making stats on this day. You want to imagine "Heavens" includes stars, because the Heavens have stars!!
So, since the Earth contains plants, does that mean plants were also made on day 1?
You are being a silly person, telling down right lies. The bible is wrong and you know it.
Where they state.... big bang is WRONG, because the bible says the Earth was made before the stars, and so the science is wrong. Because the bible is always right.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Cont:
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Read Gen 1: 14-19 carefully. It explains WHY God made the sun and moon, and stars but does not say WHEN they were made, only that the Earth sky with visible sun, moon and stars was developed at the end of Day 4.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
This clearly describes a cloud enveloped planet, with no visible sun, moon or stars.
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. The first order of creation is heavens, earth and then light. The heavens came first, then the earth and then light.
The Earth sky we know did not exist until Day 4, as Day 2 clearly says.
@Futureplanet Twisting, distorting and lying again. Plants appeared on Genesis Day 3.
Genesis explains why God made the sun,moon and stars visible in Earth's sky on Day 4. Genesis says God made the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night and he made the stars also. The sun, moon and stars are for signs, seasons, days and years.
Nowhere in Genesis 1: 14-19 does it say "On day 4 God made the sun,moon and stars.."
I think I got this idiot Futureplanet figured out. He never answers anything, just twists words & makes fun of peoples comments. I been following this argument between glnelson1956 and Futureplanet. Futureplanet ain't never really answered him at all. Seems to me glnelson1956 has got a damn good argument here about science agreeing with Genesis.
This IDIOT goes on&on with crap, but ain't got nothing to show against glnelson1956's proving that science agrees with Genesis.
Its important to remember here that evidence like this only points toward a man named Jesus, who had followers who appeared to worship him as divine. The sources here in no way settle the matter of Jesus' divinity, however.
@TheDarvus I encourage your analyzing of the Bible for accuracy. Carefully weigh all evidence from both sides of the debate. I feel being an Agnostic is a healthy and intellectually honest stand, and it was my mindset for many, many years. Keep your mind open to BOTH sides of the debate.
It is like being a juror: consider the accused innocent until the prosecution PROVES otherwise. Likewise take the view that the Bible is inaccurate, and allow the evidence to prove/disprove.
@TheDarvus Truthfully I was testing you a bit asking about Pilate's historicity. There was no existing historic account of Pilate for almost 2000 years, so many scholars attempting to discredit the New Testament called him a fiction invented by Gospel authors. In 1961, a Roman tablet discovery dating to the 1st Century AD verified the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Pontius Pilate.
@TheDarvus Yes according to Gospel accounts, Jesus directly predicted the Temple's destruction, also inferring, but not directly predicting, the fall of Jerusalem.
If the Gospel accounts weren't written until after the Temple's fall, the Gospel authors would had mentioned it to emphasize Jesus's prediction. Since none of the Gospels, or letters of the New Testament mention Temple destruction, it is very likely the original documents were completed sometime between 30AD and 70AD.
@TheDarvus The problem with this scenario is that the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in AD70. The earliest written accounts of Christ were in completed form about 30 years prior to Temple destruction. None of the Gospels, or Letters in the New Testament mention the Temple's destruction, a clear indication the documents were in completed form before that event.
@TheDarvus Do you have any information on Pontius Pilate? Many scholars disputing the New Testament say that Pilate did not exist and is also one of the fictions created by the New Testament authors.
"Today" is what we can see for ourselves in our present lives. And events that have occurred in our lifetimes show that your statement, "the bloodiest, most ignorant, religion in the world" is a truthful description of the religion that encourages hatred, suicide bombing and beheading. This is happening NOW in the 21st Century world, where we can do something about it.
History is educational, but we don't live there anymore, so we can no longer change it.
Yet again, a review on the bible, written generations after the supposed time of Christ. Isn't it amazing with someone has magical and amazing as Christ not a single person wrote about him DURING his life??
No, it's not amazing, it's how humans 2000 years ago in their ignorance behaved, with their superstitions and myths running rampant.
Wake up and see this is all just an ancient myth, just as Allah, Buddah, Vishnu and Thor are equally valid myths.
@Futureplanet Oral traditions and written accounts of Christ were contemporary with his ministry in early 1st Century. The earliest document of the New Testament, the letter of James, was complete around AD40 about 7-10 years after the AD30-33 crucifixion. The four Gospels were completed AD40-70, with Mark the first and John the last. Independent accounts were written AD30-150 by Jewish/Greek/Roman sources such as Acts of Pilate,Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, etc.
@glnelson1956 Thank you for verifying my point. Yes, during the life of Christ there is NO written historical text or book that accounts for him. He is not in the Roman history at all. Someone supposedly so important yet, no mention, when other people were documenting facts at that time....no Jesus.
The best you have is religious documents, like the letter of James, which is as good as the Harry Potter books proving Harry exists and can ride a broom-stick.
@Futureplanet There was an official contemporary written account of Christ. It was a written Roman record called "The Acts of Pontius Pilate" written AD 26-36. While the actual records are presently lost to us, Ancient Historians cited them as reference material, so we know those records existed. And it appears the records existed up to around the 4th Century, disappearing along with other priceless Roman History records, when the Roman Empire collapsed around 400 AD.
@glnelson1956 wow...you are clutching at straws. God wants to bring a message to earth so he sends himself as a man to a small uneducated corner of the world, on a suicide mission to wash away the crimes of others thousands of years before. Next you will telling me that green martians visited you yesterday.
It's the simply the most ludicious book of fairy tales anyone will ever read. Even if there is an account of Jesus (which there isn't) doesn't mean he could do magic tricks.
@Futureplanet The "Ludicrous Book of Fairy Tales" as you call it has had amazing historical accuracy verified by archaeology and by reference to non-Christian historians. No other "fairy tales" I'm aware of have been so well verified as to accuracy.
Now, it is quite clear to all that your personal mindset requires that Christ not exist and the Bible be a "book of fairly tales". I support your total freedom to believe as you wish. But you can never be objective with such a mindset.
@Futureplanet You are a bit late in jumping on the "Jesus didn't exist" bandwagon. The Scholars who attempted it in past decades have quietly dropped the quest, because they were quickly arriving at the point of no credibility, as the credible documentation for Jesus existing is simply too great to deny. To deny the historicity of Christ, a Scholar has to deny the historicity of 80% of the ancient world that we accept on far less historic evidence.
@glnelson1956 Your comment is absurd. You just want to believe what you want to believe. And, I don't care if you think "I'm late", it needs to be repeated and repeated because of the nonsense Christians spout (not that Christians are alone in this, Hindus, Buddists, Mulsims also spout nonsense). To make out Jesus is part of the historical text is paramount to utter delusion.
Your statements here have made it clear to all that YOU do not want Christ to exist and YOU do not want the Bible to be an accurate historical document, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. For some reason, known only to yourself, it is fanatically important to you to deny Christ, deny the Bible and to force others to accept your view.
I see historic evidence that clearly contradicts your fanatical desire to believe otherwise.
@glnelson1956 Actually it's quite the opposite. Despite no evidence you want to believe in Jesus, but not Buddah or Ganesh. You want to sprout the nonsense that this ancient book is historical evidence, despite the laughable stories proven impossible. Such as global floods with 2 of every animal on a wooden boat, talking snakes, man living inside a giant fish for days, and other such stupidity.
It is 2011, time people demanded evidence to believe nonsense.
@Futureplanet Now, as I have said multiple times I have no problem with you denying the existence of Christ. It is your choice. What you have made clear is that you are not comfortable with others believing in Christ and the Bible.
Since you so hate the idea of people believing in the existence of Christ, what do you feel should be done to change their minds? Concentration Camps to "re-educate"? Gas Chambers for those that can't be "re-educated"?
@Futureplanet Now, if you want to believe that Christ did not exist, please do so.
But understand that your attempts to publicly hammer a theory totally rejected by all serious scholars, makes you look more fanatical with each attempt. And each attempt increases the "fanatic" appearance, and reduces any appearance of credibility.
Again, if your desire is that Christ not exist, regardless of evidence to the contrary, please be happy in your belief!
@glnelson1956 What delusion. Jesus is NOT repeat NOT in the archaeology. His miracles are NOT in the history books. NO ONE every during his life witnessed and wrote about it.
You have a bible and nothing more. May as well worship Jack and the Bean Stalk.
@Futureplanet If Jesus is a delusion and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and the letters of Paul, Peter, John, James, Timothy, etc are all fictions about this person "Jesus" who did not exist, then precisely why are you so bothered about it? Why not just let the "fools" believe in the fiction and you live your own life for your revealed "Truth"?
Your hard work to sell your "Truth" indicates a deep-down self-doubt about your "Truth" versus the 2000 year old Jesus "lie" that won't die.
@glnelson1956 It is exactly the opposite. The Church has pushed its agenda on society for thousands of years. Burning people alive that didn't follow. Burning others as "witches" during time of famine and plague. Today they veto stem cell research, and prevent aids infected Africa from using condoms.
Spreading fairy tales of Mark, Luke, John, etc. all who have different contradictions events of various stories, proves it's made up. (ie. who was present when Jesus's tomb was opened?)
@Futureplanet The evidence that Jesus is real is too overwhelming to ignore. If your need for Jesus to be a fiction is more important than truth, then by all means believe in your delusion. It doesn't hurt me.
As an agnostic for many years, neither the atheists nor the believers could persuade me to their views.
Several profound personal experiences clearly demonstrated that man's soul exists beyond his body.
Christ is real, although many professing his name are FAR off base.
@glnelson1956 You personal accounts are worthless. Buddists have personal accounts of Buddah, Hindus have personal accounts of Vishnu and Ganesh, Muslims of Allah, etc. It only proves that people can easily hallucinate and they can easily believe what they want to believe.
Such as you believing evidence for Jesus exists, when there is none. Only story books, that prove Jesus as much as Harry Potter books prove Harry Potter.
You are dealing with ancient superstitous people. Don't become one
@Futureplanet "You personal accounts are worthless". No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid statement.
Do you put more faith in another person's written account than in your own experience? Put another way, you don't trust your own experience, so you trust someone else's written account more. I don't think so.
While my personal experience may not be valuable to you, it is infinitely more valuable to me, than even the written accounts in the Bible itself!
@glnelson1956 You don't understand the relevance of personal accounts. If personal accounts are to be valued, then I can supply tens of THOUSANDS of personal accounts of Hindu gods. Shiva with her many arms, and Ganesh with his elephant head. People have sworn by their personal accounts, and therefore KNOW in their heart for these gods to exist.
Ring a bell?
You don't appreciate nor understand the power of the human brain. Personal experience is easily explainable, your gods are not.
@Futureplanet Human self-delusion is very much evident today in the 21st Century; walking the streets or turning on the TV will confirm the confusion and twisted perceptions of self-deluded individuals who have much difficulty in living in the real world.
You obviously feel that Science can explain everything, correct? You feel Science can explain life and death. The Scientific explanation of spirituality would be self-delusion, correct?
@glnelson1956 Please try to understand. Science does NOT explain everything. And may NEVER explain everything.
1000 years ago, we didn't know what caused lightening, so we assumed Thor, the god of lightening, or Yahweh, or Nepture, any other god made lightening. Science has reveled the truth.
Science is NOT a belief system. If is evidence based.
You trust your doctor because of science, you trust airplanes can fly because of science. But an unknown question does NOT then equal God.
@Futureplanet Some things in science are proven. Such that stars existed BEFORE the earth. Not the other way around (genesis is wrong). Evolution is well and truely proven over and over, Genesis is wrong again.
The earth is ancient, proven by science, so the idea of 6000 year old earth is truely laughable.
Religion is believe without evidence (faith), is has NO evidence of any of it.
Science only accepts finding DUE to evidence. It kicks religion out of the ball park
@Futureplanet It is called the THEORY of Evolution. Check your Science. The notion that evolution is a proven fact is a myth. If Evolution were a proven fact it would be referred to as the LAW of Evolution.
Genesis states clearly that the Heavens existed before the Earth. No one knows how long a "Creation Day" lasted, because the Sun and Moon did not arrive until the 4th "Creation Day", so a "Creation Day" is clearly not a 24 hr Earth Day.
Cont: Genesis states that earth life began in the ocean on the 5th Creation Day, and that life on land did not start until the 6th Creation Day, with man arriving near the very end of the 6th Creation Day.
If you will check modern Scientific thought as to the pattern of life development on Earth, you will find that it follows the pattern outlined in Genesis. Genesis explained it several thousand years before "Science" even existed.
CONT: Now, I have always thought it odd, that Genesis states that plant life began on earth on Creation Day 3, ahead of the Sun and Moon arriving in Creation Day 4. I was thinking in terms of plant life as we know it requiring the Sun to live and thrive.
However, recent Scientific discoveries in the deepest sections of the Pacific, of simple plants that can live and thrive without sunlight, shows that primitive rudimentary plants may well have existed on primeval Earth before the Sun!
@glnelson1956 You are SO wrong. Theories NEVER become laws.
Theories explain HOW things work. Laws are the fundamentals of an equation or event. Laws do not explain things. They are completely separate. What you have said is something like, if electrical volts really exist, why don't they become watts.
Secondly, a scientific theory, is a different meaning to the everyday use of the word, which means like a hunch or feeling.
I rest my case, you CLEARLY do not know evolution or science.
@Futureplanet The Scientific Method is roughly this: Observation, measurement, hypothesis, theory, workable model, continued observation to prove/disprove theory, change workable model as elements of theories are discredited. revise theory; repeat previously outlined procedure.
The Scientific Method is highly dependent on "empirical findings.....subject to falsification....That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain..."
CONT: Recall the scandal that broke 18 months back when Scientists at the University of East Anglia were manipulating the "Global Warming" data to hide the fact that Earth temperatures had been trending downward, seriously challenging the notion of man-made caused global warming? Scientists eager to keep their funding will "reinterpret" data to keep a pay check!
The Piltdown Man evolution hoax was accepted as "fact" for 40 years because it fit current "theory".
@glnelson1956 Congratulations on looking something up, and learning. I encourage your continued investigation. Truth has nothing to hide from investigation. If it's true, then thorough investigation will only shine the light harder on that truth, or not). So, now do the same thing with evolution. Fossils, DNA, etc.
By the way, the atomic theory could be wrong. Although the evidence is overwhelming due to the proof and evidence, despite an actual atom never been seen.
@Futureplanet I had many years in Electronics, including two years toward an Engineering Degree, so I'm a bit familiar with Atomic theory. The 'Holy Grail" quest in Physics for many years now is the Unified Field Theory, a quest that I feel blinds the discipline to other possibilities.
Likewise, Evolution's "Holy Grail" quest for a single root to the theoretical tree of evolution I feel handicaps and blinds the field to other likely possibilities!
Cont: The reason I have come to so distrust Science is that so many researchers have a financial stake in their pet theories, and it may often be in their best interest to "cook' or "reinterpret" many test results in order to keep the money flowing.
That is why is is so useful to follow the money trail of a "theory".
Scientists are as corrupt and crooked as the rest of humanity, and not to be generally trusted.
@glnelson1956 Ok. Great. So you learnt electronics. So how would you react if someone, who didn't study a day of electronics, said, Atomic Theory is just a religion. Atoms have never been observed. It's just a Theory!! You Electronic students just believe what you have been told. Why don't you think for yourself, and open your mind to the truth!! There are NO atoms, only god. God made use in his image. Not with atoms.'
(this is exactly what you are doing with evolution).
@Futureplanet I am perfectly willing to accept and use the present models for atomic, electronic, and evolutionary theory. I understand those models represent theories that allow us to apply observation and measurement to practical use of these disciplines.
However, I understand fully that these working models are not absolute concrete facts based in reality any more than my 1/32 scale plastic model of a Spitfire is an exact, faithful, true copy of the real WW2 fighter plane.
@glnelson1956 There is a lot of debate on evolution. And a lot that is unknown. The same with atoms. The subatomic particles contain huge questions.
What is certain is that evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is baseless. There is nothing that disproves evolution. Just find a rabbit skeleton in the cambrian rock layer and evolution is done and dusted. Find a DNA heirarchy that doesn't fit the model, evolution is over.
@Futureplanet That evolution within a species occurs is clearly evident, and few will question that. It is when the known concept of species evolution is applied to "one common source' for all life on earth that we run into problems. While I would agree that is one concept to consider, there are also too many other possibilities to focus on just one.
When a Scientist makes the "one evolutionary source" theory his "God and Religion" he is blinded and biased to other possibilities.
@glnelson1956 So what you are saying is something like. An ant walking 10 inches is clearly evident, but a swarm of ants moving accross a state can't be observed so cannot be proven.
The mechanism (mutation for advantage) happens within a species (observed within a few generation), the EXACT same mechanism if continued for millions of years, you think cannot end up with serious change???
Yet we KNOW dogs came from wolves (hmm..why are there still wolves?)
@Futureplanet their DNA has never been seen before. ANY mutation will be passed on forever, and can't be taken back. We see mutation EVERYWHERE. If being born with a hairy face was an advantage (wolf-boy), and say females found it attractive, within 10-20 thousand years lets say, we could ALL have completely hairy faces. Hairy faces will have a reproduce advantage.
It also is SEEN in the DNA record. Vestigial genes found in today's animals, are found active in ancient animal DNA of diff..
Really the evidence is overwhelming, and there is just SO much of, you can spend years and years reading scientific paper after paper. Read 0.1% of it, and there is no turning back. You cannot ignore the EVIDENCE.
Species change so slowly from one to the next that it is a seamless transition.
Look at the fantastic fossil record for horses for example. From one animal to the next.
All anti-evolutionists just don't know and don't want to know.
@Futureplanet I think you are so lost in the myriad details of Genetics as a crutch to support your religion of Evolutionary Theory, that you cannot possibly see the "forest of reality with your nose pressed so firmly against the bark of the tree of infinite detail". You have much in common with self-deluded "Christians" who study the Bible in such exquisite detail, that they forget that the simple "Love God and Love others as yourself" is the only key they need.
CONT: I also continue to caution about accepting the present table of human evolution as absolute fact. I suspect that many fakes and subtle "rearranging" of the evidence will come to light in the future. Scientists are as corrupt and subject to the lure of fame and money as the rest of mankind.
I am absolutely certain that there are many other "Piltdown Men" hidden on the present evolutionary chart.
@Futureplanet Anything worshiped the way some worship Evolutionary Theory, can be considered a religion and a "God". Judeo-Christian philosophy would term it "Idolatry", the worship of a false god.
Common "building blocks" of life are to be expected, even among widely separated species. Some would say that shows the hand of God. Indeed, some formerly agnostic scientists have been convinced of God's existence due to such 'Universal Order'!
@glnelson1956 I think worshipping anything is dubious. I know of no-one that "worships" evolutionary theory, just as no phyist worships E=Mc2, but they rightfully may revere it. Honestly, you are over exhubarent in your adversity to this theory in particular...ONLY...because it proves Genesis incorrect.
It is the highly qualified biologists, palentologists, chemists, etc. which are frustrated with the ignorant and absurd denial claims made by those with no understanding of how it works.
@Futureplanet Genesis accurately describes the evolution of life development on earth several thousand years before modern Science even existed to verify it.
I was an agnostic for many years until I actually read the Bible. That's when I discovered that the shrill voices of "Impartial" Science denouncing the "Book of Fairy Tales" did so with distortions, half-truths and out right lies about its content.
That is when "Impartial" Science's credibility eroded to "zero" for me.
CONT: The reality is that much of "Science" is a scam business promoting whatever current fantasy will generate the most money. There's a long line of tiny hidden news stories about "scientists", "medical researchers" etc, creatively interpreting results in ways that will generate the most income.
It is amazing how many of these "open-minded" Science-types have never read the Bible, yet continue to lie about its supposed "inaccuracies".
@glnelson1956 "Genesis accurately the evolution of life". This I gotta hear. Please can you give me the passages in the bible that describe DNA replication, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and survival of the fittest.
Amazing no in the history of planet earth ever saw or mentioned those passages until just now! I think you better get ready for your nobel prize.
@Futureplanet Again, you can't see the forest for the trees, can you? So hung up in details that you are clueless to the overall picture.
Genesis 1 1:31 in broad terms places the development of life in the same order that modern science has. Genesis order of development: universe, earth, light, water, land/sea formation, plants, sun,moon, ocean life, birds, land creatures, man.
Genesis says that on primordial Earth, plants appeared even before the skies cleared!
CONT: I'll ask again Futureplanet have you read the Bible?
I'm curious to see how "open-minded" you really are.
Although I'm not an expert in Evolutionary Theory by any stretch, I have read outlines of past and present ideas on the theory, in order to evaluate what seems valid and what seems questionable.
Likewise, I've read Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler for the same reasons, although I am by no means a Marxist or a Nazi. Just curious about the good/bad of their ideas.
@glnelson1956 Genesis says earth BEFORE sun. Totally hyterically wrong. Can't you see the forest? Religions are ancient myths...That's the forest. The tree in front of you is the details of the bible, that you cling to.
The big picture is the history of man, religion and other myths. That's the forest and I get it.
1. HUMANS INVENT RELIGIONS. FACT.
2. HUMANS WILL FOLLOW ANY RELGIONS THEY ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. FACT.
You are no exception. Caught in the usual myths and details.
@Futureplanet In a forming universe, light, other planets and star systems would have existed before our solar system. Clearly light would have existed long before our own sun. On primordial Earth, how long do you think it would have taken for the swirling mists, vapors and gasses to evolve into our present atmosphere and sky, revealing the sun, moon and stars?
Intellectually honest Scientists, interested in truth, would admit that the Genesis order of creation mirrors modern thought.
@glnelson1956 What are you talking about! This is not an opinion.
in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Earth first. Before light, before stars.
How do you think iron is made? How are all heavy metals formed? Do some more looking up and learning. You did it before.
Stop with the second guessing, and investigate the evidence. I can't spend my life educating on the up to date finds of biology, chemistry and physics.
@Futureplanet The heavens, created before the earth include material to form stars before light appeared. Earth and its future solar system is part of the swirling mass of universe creation. Then light appeared as stars and solar systems formed. Seems fairly straightforward and in line with the pattern modern science has laid out.
I can see it as I imagine most others can. You won't see it, because the Bible MUST be a lie for your delusion to work.
@Futureplanet "The Bible is completely wrong. PERIOD".
Archaeology and history have proven the Bible incredibly accurate beyond question. Screaming lies will not make them true, only draw attention to the lie.
It is people like you who ended my agnostic era, by forcing me to read the Bible, to see how the "book of fairy tales" as you refer to it, could fool people for thousands of years.
The lies, distortions and half-truths of people like you then came fully to light.
@Futureplanet You can't handle the fact that Genesis has the formation of the Universe right thousands of years before modern Science existed to confirm it. Such a fact won't allow your delusion to exist, so you have to deny it.
I have had precisely the same experience when I used the words of the Bible to confront others in their distortions, lies, and half-truths about the "Book of Fairy Tales" as you call it.
Your objectivity is a myth, and your credibility a ""fairy tale".
@Futureplanet You are a prime example of why my agnosticism melted away. For years I listed to others of your type, put down the Bible as a "book of fairy tales" as you put it. Then I read the Bible, out of curiosity. That's when I discovered that the "enlightened types" putting the Bible down were doing so with half-truths, distortions and outright lies.
How "enlightened" and intellectually honest is one who puts down a book he has never read?
@Futureplanet I'm a natural agnostic about most things in this world. I know man pretty well. I take scientific theories and "facts" with a huge grain of salt. Why? Because Scientists are people, just as corrupt and open to bribery as most. Scientific Theories develop along the line of who is paying the most money.
The "Man-caused Global Warming Scam"' that is beginning to unravel is just one of many frauds Science has gifted to mankind.
Cont: When we really begin to look at the "man behind the curtain" we see REALITY and it ain't pretty. Regardless of which profession looked into, Education, Religion, Politics, Law Enforcement, Legal, etc. we discover that a large percentage of PEOPLE are pretty disgusting overall and not to be trusted. Most are greedy, close-minded, self-centered and amoral. I wouldn't trust their view on a sunrise unless I looked myself, regardless of being a "Scientist", "Professor", whatever.
Cont: So if you want to believe in evolution, fine. If you want to believe that Jesus is a fiction, fine. You could drop dead today and it would have no effect on my life, so it's pointless for me to care anyway.
But I will tell you this. Check the money trail behind the guys peddling the latest "theory" on evolution, "Jesus a fiction", Global Warming, or whatever snake oil they are pushing, before you emotionally commit to the "reality" they are paid to present.
@Futureplanet Science cannot explain gravity, electricity, nuclear reactions, evolution or life. We have developed "Theories" in each of these areas that allow us to measure, predict, harness and put each of these "studies" to some use. But we really do not know if our "theories" are correct.
Science cannot bring a dead dog back to life, because Science simply does not know the origins of Life or even what Life is.
@Futureplanet, Cont: Science cannot explain how a person, dead with no brain function or heart function, can describe in incredible detail, Medical conversations with the team working on him, accurately describe family conversations occurring 3 floors below them, accurately identify items on the hospital roof 10 floors up, & visit a "new world" meeting long-dead relatives they never knew existed.
Science weakly says "hallucinations".
How can a no-activity brain & heart "hallucinate"?
jesus is a man made name and it's less than 400 years old. This is the reason why you'll never find a thing on that name. Don't believe me, just do your own research. Start with the Hebrew name Yahushua and than the truth will come out. Pray about it first with a pure heart. The Father's name is Yahuwah. Peace to you all
And that means, it is religion itself which gives the "devil" his power. If no one gave two shits about any of it, the God of said religion would be no more. Man is not dependent upon gods. It is the gods that are dependent upon men. If god didn't believe in man, man would still be here. If man didn't believe in God, Man would still be here. See how that works?
Listening to a christian or a church worship god is identical to listening to people worship the sun or the moon. Silliness!
Trying to prove Jesus lived is no different than trying to prove Gandhi lived. It doesn't make him anything more than a popular cult phenomenon of his time. Proving he lived doesn't prove truth to the stories written about him, especially when you have multiple differing stories, written by people who didn't even know him.
Deception is the tool of the devil, yet faith is the only means to which deception can even take place. You have to believe without knowing, leaving room to be deceived.
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT Jesus Christ lived & was put to death as the historical record proves, an unremarkable event other than being recorded history. What IS remarkable, is that according to witnesses, Jesus was buried in a tomb, and then 3 days later rose from the dead, and then went out among his followers for 40 days as proof. Then in front of witnesses, he ascended to heaven.
If true, your statements are worthless smoke. SOMETHING happened, as it remains conversation 2000 years later.
@ACIRCLEOFLIGHT It is very easy for you to prove that Jesus Christ was a con man, and Christianity is just another goofy religion. All you have to do is find the tomb of Jesus, and his bones inside. Then I'll join you in giving a belated Academy Award to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul as their collective "Acts" were one hell of a show!
In fairness, I must warn you that, so far, it has been a fruitless 2000 year-old quest.
@glnelson1956 : Lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence against. The holy grail was never found either, that must mean its real right? No one has been able to find thor's hammer, or the sasquach, I guess since there's no evidence to prove they don't exist, we must conclude that they do?
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT We know Thor is Norse mythology because there are no accounts of his existence other than mythology. The "Holy Grail" has no Biblical account, so its existence is a question mark. Jesus' birth, ministry & death has been verified in MANY Greek, Roman, and Jewish historical accounts independent of the Biblical account. If that's not proof, then we must also doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar and many others with FAR less historical proof than Jesus!
@glnelson1956 : The mere suggestion that "eye witnesses" can verify the resurrection proves they are liars does it not? As according to the gospels, no one witnessed it as it happened. Do you know how many "religious" eyewitnesses there are for millions of other fallacies from all religions? Any idea? Please explain how yours is different.
And the idea that it being discussed somehow makes it true by default, would make Islam more true by the same standard of reason would it not?
jesus was a nazarene, they were vegans, these scriptures today have been altered, vegans were thrown too the fire and priests exiled if they did not eat meat.
normalguyable 1 month ago
@normalguyable
Is the Passover lamb exempt?
laflugantabastardo 1 week ago
@laflugantabastardo according to the earliest souces he never ate the lamb, that was inserted in by the catholci church editors who persecuted the priests who refused to eat meat. as a nazarene which jesus was he would never eat a innocent animal.
normalguyable 6 days ago
@normalguyable
One has to wonder what he then ate for Passover, as lamb was part of the Passover meal. There's also that part where Jesus ate fish. But perhaps the fish was not innocent.
laflugantabastardo 5 days ago
@laflugantabastardo the scriptures the describe him eating a innocent animal was inserted by the catholic church animal abusing murdering scum and now every human since birth is taught to eat cows and pigs and chickens, and dogs and cats are exempt from the murder cause theyre cute and cuddly.
normalguyable 5 minutes ago
Wow! A magical, half-Roman Jesus? It sure is good to know that Greco-Roman fan fiction lives on to this day!
Patience1138 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Paradox: 1) Josephus did not live during the time of Jesus. 2) There is PLENTY of evidence from Josephus writing that he simply reported from another source or rather heresay. 3) He never accepted Christianity and rather claimed someone else as "messiah". 4) The concept of "messiah" for Jews is NOT similar to the Christian concept of "messiah". The true concept,the Jewish one, is to say that the "messiah" is human and not a god!
cris750 3 months ago
Tacitus tells the truth about Christianity, it is a deadly superstition and is deadly created in ROME
thone2008 3 months ago
@thone2008 JUDEA is where christianity came from, and the mischief found it's place in ROME
conraddoavil 1 month ago
@conraddoavil
It was created in Rome under the authorship of Titus Josephus, the Flavian-Piso Roman Aristocratic Elite
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008 I also saw a unicorn last night
conraddoavil 1 month ago
@conraddoavil
Unicorn is a Horse, the horn represented the Phallus. and the Latin for Horse is "Ippos", and its the Symbol for the House of "Calpurnius Piso", you will find 4 Horsemen in Revelations e.g. Ippos-Men, whom are 4 Piso Men, Josephus (Josepos) real name was Arrius C. Piso, always PSO, gOSPol, ePIStle, CHRIST (p = r) cPISt. Riiver PISOn, Genesis, fake River added by Roman Piso. You not intelligent enough to understand
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008 "you not intellegent enough to understand"
I'm sorry, I don't get my information from books like the davinci code
conraddoavil 1 month ago
@conraddoavil
Most my Information is From Book of Acts, because Acts = Actors, it reveals the Actors of the Gospels
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008 I think we have it!....Robin, to the batmobile!!! Duh-Duh!, Duh-Duh! BAT_MAAAAAANNNN!!
bryanttillman 1 month ago
The only evidence this video provides is for the Christians, not for Jesus himself
By that reasoning, I should take War of the Worlds as proof for the existence of Martians, since it takes place in 1890's London & we have historical accounts of London's existence in the 1890's
Tarynus 3 months ago
2:10 You know what Tacitus is stating here??? That CHRISTIANITY DIED OUT COMPLETELY. Something that is DENIED by Josephus.
EdM021 3 months ago
I don't have a problem with the idea that this person we call "Jesus" did live. That a charismatic drifter and gifted orator really did influence and affect the lives and minds of so many people that heard of him. I'm quite willing to believe that's true. I simply don't believe that his existence means that any supernatural qualities attributed to him in texts about him *must* be true just because he was alive. He was a man, not a wizard.
chubbm 3 months ago
@chubbm Well since Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He is God the Son and it is not too difficult to believe that He was able to perform many miracles.
1954phyllis 3 months ago
@1954phyllis You have to make a leap of logic to believe that he was the son of a god and god at the same time and born from a virgin woman (a detail caused by a mistranslation from the Aramaic word for young woman to the Greek word for virgin by the way) and also had magical powers (one Gospel that was written but not included has Jesus as a child transforming people into goats). I can write a book saying things about me too. It doesn't make them true when read thousands of years later.
chubbm 3 months ago
strange that this video has so many dislikes?
giorgiv18 3 months ago
The Bible is not the word of God. Well some of it is, but a lot of it is the conjuring of Man. I didn't realize that you were pro Christianity, otherwise, I would have withheld my comment. I don't believe, you do. You also believe I will be burnt as a tare. Whatever. God Bless you too.
lessermystery 5 months ago
to know fully what father god teaches, one must use th king james bible. all others have been adulterated, because we are in the end days. many verses and words have either been deleted, or altered into political corrwectness. the modern churches and seminaries in these days teach herisy. God does not change with the times.the NEW KING JAMES IS A HERISY, THE NIV IS AND ABOMONATION! JESUS IS COMING YOU WILL SEE HIM SOON! THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM FATHER GOD. STUDY, AND SEEK THE KINGDOM OF GOD REPENT
godwithme777 5 months ago
@godwithme777 When can we expect him to arrive? Just wondering if I should cancel any appointments.
DarkOneRRp 4 months ago
@godwithme777 The King James version is just as flawed. There were mistranslations and conflicts with scripture before it got even close to the King James translation.
chubbm 3 months ago
jimmyeatfood 1911..EAT THOU SPIRITUAL FOOD, THE BREAD OF LIFE. WOE TO YOU PAGANS WHO SCOFF AT GOD, BUT KNOW NOT WHAT YOU DO! WOULD YOU RATHER WALLOW IN YOUR FILTHY WAYS, AND REFUSE TO HARKEN UNTO THE WORD OF GOD, AND BE BURNT AS TARES IN THE SOON TO COME JUDGEMENT? ALL YOUR BOOKS ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU ARE UNDER A GREAT DECEPTION! THIS JESUS YOU DENY IS COMING TO THIS PLANET SOON. YOU WILL SEE HIM! REPENT BEFORE YOU WILL SUFFER THE PANGS OF HELL. THIS MESSAGE TO YOU IS FROM GOD!
godwithme777 5 months ago
@godwithme777 you sound like edward current,if you dont know him hes a very funny atheist like yourself. thumbed you up.
kram83au 4 months ago
A man called Christ, not a man called Jesus. If there was a man named Jesus, who was proclaimed Christ ostensibly by some institution, he must have had a last name. It would either have been his mother Mary's or his fathers name. but it Joseph, or Pantheous.(sp). What is presented in this video is very poor evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. History can't even confirm what his name was. I'm m more and more inclined to believe this man existed and was a genius but not the son of God.
lessermystery 5 months ago
@lessermystery "FORTHE NATURAL MAN (HUMANS WHO ARE SPIRITUALLY DEAD, AND WILL BE BURNT AS TARES) RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE WORD OF GOD, FOR IT IS AS FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM, NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, FOR THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED".
SPIRITUAL IGNORQANCE WILL BE NO EXCUSE FOR SPIRITUAL MATTERS. GOD IS NOT MOCKED, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CONFIRMS AND REGENERATES HUMANS TO THEIR ORIGINALSPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL GENOME. WE NEVER DIE, JUST RECEIVE A NEW "CONTAINER". THIS IS NO THEORY, OR MYTH.
godwithme777 5 months ago
the fact that historians accurately accounted for the DOCTRINE of Christianity is just evidence that they were aware of christians, it is not evidence that the accounts of biblical jesus are in any way historically accurate.
kwballzandy 5 months ago 2
Tacitus' testimony is worthless. He mentions Christians and Christ hinting that Jesus is a real person, but lets not forget the Tacitus probably thought Romulus was a real person too. The same Romulus who disappears and is thought to be murdered by the Senate until someones says that they saw him caught up and speak from heaven. If Tacitus' testimony about Jesus is evidence then Romulus and Remus are real too?
mmaghola 5 months ago
@mmaghola Romulus and Remus were likely real people, that doesnt mean the myths surrounding them are all factual.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
This isn't testimony, any more than the Bible is, to Jesus's existence. These documents were probably much influenced by word of mouth. I doubt very much that Tacitus even saw Jesus. This isn't to say he didn't exist. He might have but he just wasn't a divine gift from Yahweh or any other supposed god.
JimmyEatFood1911 5 months ago
"So, the heavens are what? space? Space dust?"
No one knows for sure, not even science. Obviously, somehow, some way, matter was created from pure energy in the formation stage of the Universe. If 'the heavens" were created first as Genesis orders, then other solar systems, stars, planets, etc existed before our solar system and earth came into being as Genesis orders. So stars, a part of "the heavens", HAD to be there before earth's atmosphere formed to reveal them on Creation Day 4.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Heavens means space.
Stars are mentioned later. Why would have mention that he made the stars on the 4th day, if he already made them on the 1st day.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet All the photos and videos I've seen of Space show stars. Using an advanced telescope such as Hubble to look deep into Space reveals solar systems, black holes, stars living, dying and dead.
Creation Day 4 is when the Sun, Moon and stars first appeared in Earth's sky. Up until that time the earth was forming, likely enveloped in mists gasses, etc, similar to Venus presently. When Earth's life-sustaining atmosphere finally developed, the skies cleared to reveal Sun, Moon, Stars.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 This is just downright ridiculous. The bible says.... on the 4th day, God made the stars. Not what was visible from Earth. THAT HE MADE THE STARS.
You may want to think the "heavens" means including stars, but you NOT following your own bible.
The bible is not an astronomy book. It's just wrong. There is no misinterpretation, so stop trying to spin this in your favor. Day 1 Heavens and Earth (space sky Earth). Day 4 stars
This is just not right. Don't try to change it
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet If the Heavens were created first, as Genesis clearly says, then the stars had to be there, because the stars are part of the heavens. The fact that the stars were not visible in the Earth sky until later only means the Earth's sky was not yet evolved and formed for them to be visible. Again, in modern science thinking, this would be the case in Earth's Primordial state, long prior to even primitive plant life forming.
It is clear as a bell whether you see it or not!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 You must know you are trying to spin this. Shame the bible doesn't say, In the begging god made the stars, but they not visible from Earth!
The bible is NOT about what is visible from Earth. you are just making this up. This is a desperate attempt to try and make sense of what is cleary not right.
So, please explain to me. Why does god MAKE THE STARS on the 4TH day, if they already existed?
Will you just stop already. You've lost this debate.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Again, you are either too dense, or too biased to see it and that is not my problem. I have said clearly time and time again that the "Heavens" or "Space as we commonly call it today has solar systems, stars, etc. Genesis clearly said it came first. By day 4 in Genesis, Earth's atmosphere had formed to the point that stars, sun and moon are visible. Science pretty well agrees with that sequence of events.
This is the 3rd time I've described my understanding of Genesis to you
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: Now if you are too stupid to understand plain English, that it your problem. I cannot educate a moron via the comments section of Youtube.
That you are a narrow-minded fool is becoming more and more evident. It appears your tiny little brain simply cannot conceive of a view different than your own. Repeatedly I have said I respect your view, but I see things far differently.
Now, is the gray matter stirring or do you require a 4th repeat explanation of Genesis as I see it?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 I am not too dense to see you are talking utter nonsense. We KNOW the heavens (aka space) contains stars.
The question is, when did god MAKE THE STARS. According to the bible, on the 4th day. Why don't you read it. You are talking utter crap. Saying that becuase they are visible from earth on the 4th day, that is what is meant by "on the 4th day God made the stars".
So, you are saying God is trapped on Earth, and only says he makes stars on the 4th day, because he sees them?
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Day 1. light
Day 2. Firmament (skies)
Day 3. Earth and sea
Day 4. Sun, Moon and Stars
Day 5. Living creatures
Day 6. livestock and humans
Day 7. Rest.
This is the order in the bible. This is NOT an interpretation. This is the written words in black and white.
Day 4, actually says god made the stars.
Stars EXIST in the heavens because according to the bible, GOD MADE STARS on day 4. PERIOD. Its in the bible. JUST READ IT, don't SPIN IT.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet
Wrong.
This is correct Genesis Order:
Day 1: Heavens, Earth and light
Day 2: division of waters in firmament from waters below firmament. (Firmament would eventually become the Earth sky)
Day 3: dry land appears, separating the waters into oceans and seas; first plants appear;
Day 4: Earth sky with sun,moon and stars to form signs, seasons, days and years;
Day 5: Life in the oceans and creatures that can fly.
Day 6; animal life on land; and at the very end, man.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Your bigotry and bias simply close your mind. You want to force everyone to see things your way. You are not content to allow others to have their own view, your view MUST be rammed down their throat.
Just because YOU can't see something that others can, doesn't; mean its wrong.
Just means your mind can't comprehend it, for reasons of biased blindness, or simple mental limitations.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet You may not be able to see it or comprehend, but the brief descriptions in Genesis on the formation of the universe and of how Primordial Earth appeared until its sky and atmosphere developed, make a lot of sense. Particularly if you read modern scientific thought and theory on the phases of Primordial Earth as it developed.
800 million years ago, the planet was so warm that it was enveloped in dense clouds and nothing would have been visible in the sky, but stars existed!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 I think you could show a touch of honesty and humility, and just admit, the bible says "God made the stars on the 4th day" How clearer does it need to be written.
It would be honest of you to stop trying to spread lies and nonsense about what other meaning "god made the stars on the 4th day" actually means.
Which according to your lies, means stars are visible from earth on the 4th day. Such a silly childish argument to avoid the truth.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I think you should just accept the fact that I see things far differently than you. My reading of Genesis is a valid interpretation of the very brief description of the origin of the Universe and Earth. You may disagree, and see things differently, and that I have no problem with. You view is yours and does not affect me. I respect your right to see things your way, but don't expect me to agree with you.
A mature way to handle this is to "agree to disagree".
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Ok. I agree to disagree with you that when the bible says:
And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule by day, and the lesser luminary to rule by night; and the stars.
I say, "and the stars" means "he also made stars" and you say:
"and the stars' means "and those stars he made on day 1, now are visible on earth because the atmosphere had matured"
WOW.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule by day, and the lesser luminary to rule by night; and the stars.
(the two great luminaries being of course the sun and the moon). But I guess the sun he made on day 1, and when it says god made two great luminaries, it means, "of the two luminaries, the one made to govern the day, actually made on day 1, despite being so bring, wasn't visible till now, depsite light taking 8 min. to reach the earth from the sun"
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Primordial Earth's surface was so warm that it was enveloped in constant cloud cover. The sky as we know it today did not exist, and from the Earth's surface, no stars, sun or moon could possibly be seen. Until Earth's surface cooled sufficiently over many millions of years, the sun had little- to-no effect on Earth's surface temperatures. There would have been no animal life of any type at this time, only gradually evolving simple plant life.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: When Primordial Earth's surface cooled to the point the solid cloud cover could break, then the sky would be visible and the sun could begin to have an effect on Earth's surface temperatures. The skies would then begin to resemble what we see today. Sunlight constantly on the Earth's surface would be a catalyst to evolve the primitive plant life into more and more complex plants over millions more years until the first primitive animal life appeared in the oceans.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: The process of Earth geologic development to primitive-to-complex plant development described in the two previous comments occurred up to about 600 million years ago. Somewhere around 580-600 million years ago, primitive animal life first appeared in the oceans.
This is roughly geologic-and-life-development on Earth, per modern Science, depending upon which of several theories you choose to follow.
The Genesis account is amazingly close to modern Scientific thought on the matter.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: To put Genesis into the timeline of Earth Development, would look something like this:
Creation Day 1 ended about 4.5 Billion years ago with the formation of the Earth from material revolving around the sun. Creation Day 2 ended about 4.1 Billion years ago with ocean formation. Creation Day 3 ended about 3 billion years ago with simple plants. Creation Day 4 ended about 600 million years ago with ozone layer formation. The sky was now normal with visible sun,moon and stars.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: Creation Day 5 ended about 350 million years ago with the arrival of major ocean life and flying insects on land. The Earth at this point would be recognizable to modern man with abundant plant and insect life on land. Creation Day 6 ended about 200,000 years ago with the arrival of modern man.
Genesis 1: 1-31 may not be as detailed as you want, but its description of Earth life development follows modern Scientific theory accurately to an amazing degree!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Groan......yes....yes...your right.
And god made the stars on the 4th day....actually means:
"gases in the Earth's surface cleared and now the stars were visible"
I am such a gullible fool, that I will fall for your descriptions of the bible stating clearly that "god made the stars on the 4th day" as the BIBLE describes it, is actually meaning the visibility of stars, and not GOD MAKING the stars.
This is about the biggest spin I have ever heard. Can you really believe it???
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Uncomfortable to have your lies, distortions and half-truths tossed back in your face?
The Earth sky that you and I see today did not even exist until 350 million years ago. The formation of that sky as a clear window to "the Heavens" did not happen until 600 million years ago. Modern Science itself says that.
The sun, moon and stars would not exist to a person standing on Earth's surface 700 million years ago.
Genesis says that and Science confirms it!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Now, I've gone to the trouble of carefully laying out Scientific thought on Earth's development, side-by-side with Genesis 1: 1-31, from 4.5 Billion years ago up to man's arrival 200,000 years ago.
You've laid out sarcastic stupidity along with lies, distortions and half-truths, and little else. I suspect you are as clueless as you appear.
Others reading our comments can easily see where truth exists. In that regard Futureplanet, you've been very useful.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet this comment proves glnelson1956's saying your words are "lies, distortions, and half-truths". You even read his comments? He's got a pretty good case that Genesis & Science agree. All you do is whine & twist words. You ain't laid out nothing as detailed as comparing Genesis/Science like glnelson1956.
He's kicked your butt into the stratosphere, Boy, and you're too damn dumb to know it.
coltperc 6 months ago
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I have read Genesis enough to see you are twisting words to your liking. glnelson says the stars and such existed from the creation of the heavens on day 1, but were not visible on earth til day 4 as Genesis says. It don't say God MADE the stars on Day 4, (just says he made sun&moon&stars also, not WHEN) & says he put them in the sky with the sun&moon on Day 4 to make signs & days & so forth. Meaning on Day 4 God let the heavens show on earth.
Don't read real close do you?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956
GO TO ANSWSERS IN GENESIS:
answersingenesis (dot) org/docs2006/0404order.asp
THIS FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN WEBSITE SAYS THE EARTH WAS MADE BEFORE THE SUN, BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
THE KING JAMES BIBLE SAYS, EXACTLY THESE WORDS:
"he made the stars also."
Referring to the 4th day. does NOT say "he made the stars visible from Earth", is says "he made the stars also."
Go to answers in genesis, and listen to your nutty christians.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Futureplanet I don't agree with these Christian misreadings of Genesis 1, any more than I agree with your misreadings of Genesis 1. You are both totally off base about what Genesis says.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Because when scientists talk about the formation of black holes, or super nova, they say that the day they are formed is when they suddenly become visible.
That's why all galaxies only formed 50 years ago. Because before then, we couldn't see them.
So, if a scientist says, galaxies formed billions of years ago, that ACTUALLY mean, because our telescopes advanced 50 years ago, now they are visible, hence they are made 50 years ago.
Ignore the words, and insert your own meaning.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Nice long meaningless rant.
Folks can check my previous comments for a detailed description of how the modern Scientific timeline of Earth's development clearly demonstrates the amazing accuracy of Genesis 1: 1-31.
The rant you've thoughtfully provided here Futureplanet, is a useful illustration of how those of your type use lies, distortions and half-truths to deceive. All that's needed is to compare your rant here against my comments to see your lies in living color.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Folks can see your spin. The bible says clearly. Sun, Earth and Stars made on Day 4. Heavens and Earth day 1. Doesn't say anything about making stats on this day. You want to imagine "Heavens" includes stars, because the Heavens have stars!!
So, since the Earth contains plants, does that mean plants were also made on day 1?
You are being a silly person, telling down right lies. The bible is wrong and you know it.
Day 4. Sun and stars are made. AFTER the Earth.
WRONG.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Sun MOON and Stars on Day 4. Not Earth, sorry.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Ok, I went to a higher source. CHRISTIAN ANSWERS dot com
christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html
Futureplanet 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Ok, I went to a higher source. CHRISTIAN ANSWERS dot com
christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html
Day 4. God makes the sun, moon AND STARS.
You want to dispute Christian Answers?
How about
christianity (dot) about (dot) com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm
Again, states:
God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth
It is SOOOOOOOO clear. no spin required.
You have lost this arguement.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet
Answers in genesis!!!!
I have an alley for this arguement fro:
answersingenesis (dot) org/docs2006/0404order.asp
Where they state.... big bang is WRONG, because the bible says the Earth was made before the stars, and so the science is wrong. Because the bible is always right.
Check it out.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet King James Version GEN 1: 14-19
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Cont:
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont:
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Read Gen 1: 14-19 carefully. It explains WHY God made the sun and moon, and stars but does not say WHEN they were made, only that the Earth sky with visible sun, moon and stars was developed at the end of Day 4.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: King James Version Gen 1: 6-8
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
This clearly describes a cloud enveloped planet, with no visible sun, moon or stars.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont:
King James Version Gen 1: 1-5
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. The first order of creation is heavens, earth and then light. The heavens came first, then the earth and then light.
The Earth sky we know did not exist until Day 4, as Day 2 clearly says.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I don't agree with these Christian misreadings of Genesis 1, any more than I agree with your misreadings of Genesis 1.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Twisting, distorting and lying again. Plants appeared on Genesis Day 3.
Genesis explains why God made the sun,moon and stars visible in Earth's sky on Day 4. Genesis says God made the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night and he made the stars also. The sun, moon and stars are for signs, seasons, days and years.
Nowhere in Genesis 1: 14-19 does it say "On day 4 God made the sun,moon and stars.."
You are lying and distorting again Futureplanet.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
I think I got this idiot Futureplanet figured out. He never answers anything, just twists words & makes fun of peoples comments. I been following this argument between glnelson1956 and Futureplanet. Futureplanet ain't never really answered him at all. Seems to me glnelson1956 has got a damn good argument here about science agreeing with Genesis.
This IDIOT goes on&on with crap, but ain't got nothing to show against glnelson1956's proving that science agrees with Genesis.
coltperc 6 months ago
Its important to remember here that evidence like this only points toward a man named Jesus, who had followers who appeared to worship him as divine. The sources here in no way settle the matter of Jesus' divinity, however.
s3tione 7 months ago
'Duplicates are not allowed for this playlist' -- that is the Youtube notice i see when i tried to SHARE this vid and to SAVE it.
Bias? Or what?
IdaSputum 7 months ago
@TheDarvus I encourage your analyzing of the Bible for accuracy. Carefully weigh all evidence from both sides of the debate. I feel being an Agnostic is a healthy and intellectually honest stand, and it was my mindset for many, many years. Keep your mind open to BOTH sides of the debate.
It is like being a juror: consider the accused innocent until the prosecution PROVES otherwise. Likewise take the view that the Bible is inaccurate, and allow the evidence to prove/disprove.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus Truthfully I was testing you a bit asking about Pilate's historicity. There was no existing historic account of Pilate for almost 2000 years, so many scholars attempting to discredit the New Testament called him a fiction invented by Gospel authors. In 1961, a Roman tablet discovery dating to the 1st Century AD verified the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Pontius Pilate.
Just wanted to see if you were inventing things.
Glad to see you are intellectually honest.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus Yes according to Gospel accounts, Jesus directly predicted the Temple's destruction, also inferring, but not directly predicting, the fall of Jerusalem.
If the Gospel accounts weren't written until after the Temple's fall, the Gospel authors would had mentioned it to emphasize Jesus's prediction. Since none of the Gospels, or letters of the New Testament mention Temple destruction, it is very likely the original documents were completed sometime between 30AD and 70AD.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus The problem with this scenario is that the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in AD70. The earliest written accounts of Christ were in completed form about 30 years prior to Temple destruction. None of the Gospels, or Letters in the New Testament mention the Temple's destruction, a clear indication the documents were in completed form before that event.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus Do you have any information on Pontius Pilate? Many scholars disputing the New Testament say that Pilate did not exist and is also one of the fictions created by the New Testament authors.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@TheDarvus (A)Did these Roman aristocrats create the fictional characters of Jesus and Saul/Paul in the first, second or third century CE?
(B) For what reason did the Roman Aristocrats create the fiction of Christ and Saul/Paul?
(C) Are there any Roman names that can be tied to the fictional creation of Christ and Saul/Paul?
glnelson1956 7 months ago
"Today" is what we can see for ourselves in our present lives. And events that have occurred in our lifetimes show that your statement, "the bloodiest, most ignorant, religion in the world" is a truthful description of the religion that encourages hatred, suicide bombing and beheading. This is happening NOW in the 21st Century world, where we can do something about it.
History is educational, but we don't live there anymore, so we can no longer change it.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
Yet again, a review on the bible, written generations after the supposed time of Christ. Isn't it amazing with someone has magical and amazing as Christ not a single person wrote about him DURING his life??
No, it's not amazing, it's how humans 2000 years ago in their ignorance behaved, with their superstitions and myths running rampant.
Wake up and see this is all just an ancient myth, just as Allah, Buddah, Vishnu and Thor are equally valid myths.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet Oral traditions and written accounts of Christ were contemporary with his ministry in early 1st Century. The earliest document of the New Testament, the letter of James, was complete around AD40 about 7-10 years after the AD30-33 crucifixion. The four Gospels were completed AD40-70, with Mark the first and John the last. Independent accounts were written AD30-150 by Jewish/Greek/Roman sources such as Acts of Pilate,Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, etc.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 Thank you for verifying my point. Yes, during the life of Christ there is NO written historical text or book that accounts for him. He is not in the Roman history at all. Someone supposedly so important yet, no mention, when other people were documenting facts at that time....no Jesus.
The best you have is religious documents, like the letter of James, which is as good as the Harry Potter books proving Harry exists and can ride a broom-stick.
Faith is a weakness not a virtue.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet There was an official contemporary written account of Christ. It was a written Roman record called "The Acts of Pontius Pilate" written AD 26-36. While the actual records are presently lost to us, Ancient Historians cited them as reference material, so we know those records existed. And it appears the records existed up to around the 4th Century, disappearing along with other priceless Roman History records, when the Roman Empire collapsed around 400 AD.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 wow...you are clutching at straws. God wants to bring a message to earth so he sends himself as a man to a small uneducated corner of the world, on a suicide mission to wash away the crimes of others thousands of years before. Next you will telling me that green martians visited you yesterday.
It's the simply the most ludicious book of fairy tales anyone will ever read. Even if there is an account of Jesus (which there isn't) doesn't mean he could do magic tricks.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet The "Ludicrous Book of Fairy Tales" as you call it has had amazing historical accuracy verified by archaeology and by reference to non-Christian historians. No other "fairy tales" I'm aware of have been so well verified as to accuracy.
Now, it is quite clear to all that your personal mindset requires that Christ not exist and the Bible be a "book of fairly tales". I support your total freedom to believe as you wish. But you can never be objective with such a mindset.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 You are wrong. There are few items in the bible which match with historical records, such as the Tower of Babel for example.
This is like saying, the movie "The Hurt Locker" is a 100% true story because we have historical evidence of the Iraq war actually occuring.
I can write a fictional book with fictional characters with NO record in history, then add a war or other real event to add the story .
Jesus has NO historical basis, and is NOT verified. Buddah is just as real.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet You are a bit late in jumping on the "Jesus didn't exist" bandwagon. The Scholars who attempted it in past decades have quietly dropped the quest, because they were quickly arriving at the point of no credibility, as the credible documentation for Jesus existing is simply too great to deny. To deny the historicity of Christ, a Scholar has to deny the historicity of 80% of the ancient world that we accept on far less historic evidence.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 Your comment is absurd. You just want to believe what you want to believe. And, I don't care if you think "I'm late", it needs to be repeated and repeated because of the nonsense Christians spout (not that Christians are alone in this, Hindus, Buddists, Mulsims also spout nonsense). To make out Jesus is part of the historical text is paramount to utter delusion.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet Again, your fanaticism is showing.
Your statements here have made it clear to all that YOU do not want Christ to exist and YOU do not want the Bible to be an accurate historical document, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. For some reason, known only to yourself, it is fanatically important to you to deny Christ, deny the Bible and to force others to accept your view.
I see historic evidence that clearly contradicts your fanatical desire to believe otherwise.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 Actually it's quite the opposite. Despite no evidence you want to believe in Jesus, but not Buddah or Ganesh. You want to sprout the nonsense that this ancient book is historical evidence, despite the laughable stories proven impossible. Such as global floods with 2 of every animal on a wooden boat, talking snakes, man living inside a giant fish for days, and other such stupidity.
It is 2011, time people demanded evidence to believe nonsense.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet Now, as I have said multiple times I have no problem with you denying the existence of Christ. It is your choice. What you have made clear is that you are not comfortable with others believing in Christ and the Bible.
Since you so hate the idea of people believing in the existence of Christ, what do you feel should be done to change their minds? Concentration Camps to "re-educate"? Gas Chambers for those that can't be "re-educated"?
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@Futureplanet Now, if you want to believe that Christ did not exist, please do so.
But understand that your attempts to publicly hammer a theory totally rejected by all serious scholars, makes you look more fanatical with each attempt. And each attempt increases the "fanatic" appearance, and reduces any appearance of credibility.
Again, if your desire is that Christ not exist, regardless of evidence to the contrary, please be happy in your belief!
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 What delusion. Jesus is NOT repeat NOT in the archaeology. His miracles are NOT in the history books. NO ONE every during his life witnessed and wrote about it.
You have a bible and nothing more. May as well worship Jack and the Bean Stalk.
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet If Jesus is a delusion and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and the letters of Paul, Peter, John, James, Timothy, etc are all fictions about this person "Jesus" who did not exist, then precisely why are you so bothered about it? Why not just let the "fools" believe in the fiction and you live your own life for your revealed "Truth"?
Your hard work to sell your "Truth" indicates a deep-down self-doubt about your "Truth" versus the 2000 year old Jesus "lie" that won't die.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 It is exactly the opposite. The Church has pushed its agenda on society for thousands of years. Burning people alive that didn't follow. Burning others as "witches" during time of famine and plague. Today they veto stem cell research, and prevent aids infected Africa from using condoms.
Spreading fairy tales of Mark, Luke, John, etc. all who have different contradictions events of various stories, proves it's made up. (ie. who was present when Jesus's tomb was opened?)
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet The evidence that Jesus is real is too overwhelming to ignore. If your need for Jesus to be a fiction is more important than truth, then by all means believe in your delusion. It doesn't hurt me.
As an agnostic for many years, neither the atheists nor the believers could persuade me to their views.
Several profound personal experiences clearly demonstrated that man's soul exists beyond his body.
Christ is real, although many professing his name are FAR off base.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 You personal accounts are worthless. Buddists have personal accounts of Buddah, Hindus have personal accounts of Vishnu and Ganesh, Muslims of Allah, etc. It only proves that people can easily hallucinate and they can easily believe what they want to believe.
Such as you believing evidence for Jesus exists, when there is none. Only story books, that prove Jesus as much as Harry Potter books prove Harry Potter.
You are dealing with ancient superstitous people. Don't become one
Futureplanet 7 months ago
@Futureplanet "You personal accounts are worthless". No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid statement.
Do you put more faith in another person's written account than in your own experience? Put another way, you don't trust your own experience, so you trust someone else's written account more. I don't think so.
While my personal experience may not be valuable to you, it is infinitely more valuable to me, than even the written accounts in the Bible itself!
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@Futureplanet I am comfortable with you denying the existence of Jesus. It does not bother me at all.
I know the truth, so your attempts to advance a lie are worthless.
The denial of Christ's reality has been a 2000 year quest. It has not succeeded and it never will, I can tell you that with absolute certainty.
It requires extreme effort to push a lie, because the truth exists effortlessly.
I think you work so hard, because it is yourself you are trying to convince!
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 You don't understand the relevance of personal accounts. If personal accounts are to be valued, then I can supply tens of THOUSANDS of personal accounts of Hindu gods. Shiva with her many arms, and Ganesh with his elephant head. People have sworn by their personal accounts, and therefore KNOW in their heart for these gods to exist.
Ring a bell?
You don't appreciate nor understand the power of the human brain. Personal experience is easily explainable, your gods are not.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Human self-delusion is very much evident today in the 21st Century; walking the streets or turning on the TV will confirm the confusion and twisted perceptions of self-deluded individuals who have much difficulty in living in the real world.
You obviously feel that Science can explain everything, correct? You feel Science can explain life and death. The Scientific explanation of spirituality would be self-delusion, correct?
Do you think Science understands Life?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Please try to understand. Science does NOT explain everything. And may NEVER explain everything.
1000 years ago, we didn't know what caused lightening, so we assumed Thor, the god of lightening, or Yahweh, or Nepture, any other god made lightening. Science has reveled the truth.
Science is NOT a belief system. If is evidence based.
You trust your doctor because of science, you trust airplanes can fly because of science. But an unknown question does NOT then equal God.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Some things in science are proven. Such that stars existed BEFORE the earth. Not the other way around (genesis is wrong). Evolution is well and truely proven over and over, Genesis is wrong again.
The earth is ancient, proven by science, so the idea of 6000 year old earth is truely laughable.
Religion is believe without evidence (faith), is has NO evidence of any of it.
Science only accepts finding DUE to evidence. It kicks religion out of the ball park
You follow myths.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet It is called the THEORY of Evolution. Check your Science. The notion that evolution is a proven fact is a myth. If Evolution were a proven fact it would be referred to as the LAW of Evolution.
Genesis states clearly that the Heavens existed before the Earth. No one knows how long a "Creation Day" lasted, because the Sun and Moon did not arrive until the 4th "Creation Day", so a "Creation Day" is clearly not a 24 hr Earth Day.
Light existed on the 1st Creation Day.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont: Genesis states that earth life began in the ocean on the 5th Creation Day, and that life on land did not start until the 6th Creation Day, with man arriving near the very end of the 6th Creation Day.
If you will check modern Scientific thought as to the pattern of life development on Earth, you will find that it follows the pattern outlined in Genesis. Genesis explained it several thousand years before "Science" even existed.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: Now, I have always thought it odd, that Genesis states that plant life began on earth on Creation Day 3, ahead of the Sun and Moon arriving in Creation Day 4. I was thinking in terms of plant life as we know it requiring the Sun to live and thrive.
However, recent Scientific discoveries in the deepest sections of the Pacific, of simple plants that can live and thrive without sunlight, shows that primitive rudimentary plants may well have existed on primeval Earth before the Sun!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 You are SO wrong. Theories NEVER become laws.
Theories explain HOW things work. Laws are the fundamentals of an equation or event. Laws do not explain things. They are completely separate. What you have said is something like, if electrical volts really exist, why don't they become watts.
Secondly, a scientific theory, is a different meaning to the everyday use of the word, which means like a hunch or feeling.
I rest my case, you CLEARLY do not know evolution or science.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet The Scientific Method is roughly this: Observation, measurement, hypothesis, theory, workable model, continued observation to prove/disprove theory, change workable model as elements of theories are discredited. revise theory; repeat previously outlined procedure.
The Scientific Method is highly dependent on "empirical findings.....subject to falsification....That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain..."
Wikipedia, Scientific Method: Certainty and Myth
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: Recall the scandal that broke 18 months back when Scientists at the University of East Anglia were manipulating the "Global Warming" data to hide the fact that Earth temperatures had been trending downward, seriously challenging the notion of man-made caused global warming? Scientists eager to keep their funding will "reinterpret" data to keep a pay check!
The Piltdown Man evolution hoax was accepted as "fact" for 40 years because it fit current "theory".
Those are your "facts".
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Congratulations on looking something up, and learning. I encourage your continued investigation. Truth has nothing to hide from investigation. If it's true, then thorough investigation will only shine the light harder on that truth, or not). So, now do the same thing with evolution. Fossils, DNA, etc.
By the way, the atomic theory could be wrong. Although the evidence is overwhelming due to the proof and evidence, despite an actual atom never been seen.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I had many years in Electronics, including two years toward an Engineering Degree, so I'm a bit familiar with Atomic theory. The 'Holy Grail" quest in Physics for many years now is the Unified Field Theory, a quest that I feel blinds the discipline to other possibilities.
Likewise, Evolution's "Holy Grail" quest for a single root to the theoretical tree of evolution I feel handicaps and blinds the field to other likely possibilities!
None so blind as those who refuse to see!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont: The reason I have come to so distrust Science is that so many researchers have a financial stake in their pet theories, and it may often be in their best interest to "cook' or "reinterpret" many test results in order to keep the money flowing.
That is why is is so useful to follow the money trail of a "theory".
Scientists are as corrupt and crooked as the rest of humanity, and not to be generally trusted.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Ok. Great. So you learnt electronics. So how would you react if someone, who didn't study a day of electronics, said, Atomic Theory is just a religion. Atoms have never been observed. It's just a Theory!! You Electronic students just believe what you have been told. Why don't you think for yourself, and open your mind to the truth!! There are NO atoms, only god. God made use in his image. Not with atoms.'
(this is exactly what you are doing with evolution).
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I am perfectly willing to accept and use the present models for atomic, electronic, and evolutionary theory. I understand those models represent theories that allow us to apply observation and measurement to practical use of these disciplines.
However, I understand fully that these working models are not absolute concrete facts based in reality any more than my 1/32 scale plastic model of a Spitfire is an exact, faithful, true copy of the real WW2 fighter plane.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 There is a lot of debate on evolution. And a lot that is unknown. The same with atoms. The subatomic particles contain huge questions.
What is certain is that evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is baseless. There is nothing that disproves evolution. Just find a rabbit skeleton in the cambrian rock layer and evolution is done and dusted. Find a DNA heirarchy that doesn't fit the model, evolution is over.
Again and again it shines through.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet That evolution within a species occurs is clearly evident, and few will question that. It is when the known concept of species evolution is applied to "one common source' for all life on earth that we run into problems. While I would agree that is one concept to consider, there are also too many other possibilities to focus on just one.
When a Scientist makes the "one evolutionary source" theory his "God and Religion" he is blinded and biased to other possibilities.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 So what you are saying is something like. An ant walking 10 inches is clearly evident, but a swarm of ants moving accross a state can't be observed so cannot be proven.
The mechanism (mutation for advantage) happens within a species (observed within a few generation), the EXACT same mechanism if continued for millions of years, you think cannot end up with serious change???
Yet we KNOW dogs came from wolves (hmm..why are there still wolves?)
Every person is unique, their..cont'
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet their DNA has never been seen before. ANY mutation will be passed on forever, and can't be taken back. We see mutation EVERYWHERE. If being born with a hairy face was an advantage (wolf-boy), and say females found it attractive, within 10-20 thousand years lets say, we could ALL have completely hairy faces. Hairy faces will have a reproduce advantage.
It also is SEEN in the DNA record. Vestigial genes found in today's animals, are found active in ancient animal DNA of diff..
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet DNA of different species!!!
Really the evidence is overwhelming, and there is just SO much of, you can spend years and years reading scientific paper after paper. Read 0.1% of it, and there is no turning back. You cannot ignore the EVIDENCE.
Species change so slowly from one to the next that it is a seamless transition.
Look at the fantastic fossil record for horses for example. From one animal to the next.
All anti-evolutionists just don't know and don't want to know.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I think you are so lost in the myriad details of Genetics as a crutch to support your religion of Evolutionary Theory, that you cannot possibly see the "forest of reality with your nose pressed so firmly against the bark of the tree of infinite detail". You have much in common with self-deluded "Christians" who study the Bible in such exquisite detail, that they forget that the simple "Love God and Love others as yourself" is the only key they need.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: I also continue to caution about accepting the present table of human evolution as absolute fact. I suspect that many fakes and subtle "rearranging" of the evidence will come to light in the future. Scientists are as corrupt and subject to the lure of fame and money as the rest of mankind.
I am absolutely certain that there are many other "Piltdown Men" hidden on the present evolutionary chart.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Ok, well this is the very first time I've ever heard of a scientific theory being referred to a "god". anyway...will get back on point.
Did you know there are some genes that we, dogs, corn and all bacteria share? The code is the same, the function is the same.
Did you know the fossil record and DNA record shows us decending back further and further to more simplier life forms.
What other conclusion is there to draw FROM the available evidence? AVAILABLE EVIDENCE being key.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Anything worshiped the way some worship Evolutionary Theory, can be considered a religion and a "God". Judeo-Christian philosophy would term it "Idolatry", the worship of a false god.
Common "building blocks" of life are to be expected, even among widely separated species. Some would say that shows the hand of God. Indeed, some formerly agnostic scientists have been convinced of God's existence due to such 'Universal Order'!
Worshiping one theory blinds one to others!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 I think worshipping anything is dubious. I know of no-one that "worships" evolutionary theory, just as no phyist worships E=Mc2, but they rightfully may revere it. Honestly, you are over exhubarent in your adversity to this theory in particular...ONLY...because it proves Genesis incorrect.
It is the highly qualified biologists, palentologists, chemists, etc. which are frustrated with the ignorant and absurd denial claims made by those with no understanding of how it works.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Genesis accurately describes the evolution of life development on earth several thousand years before modern Science even existed to verify it.
I was an agnostic for many years until I actually read the Bible. That's when I discovered that the shrill voices of "Impartial" Science denouncing the "Book of Fairy Tales" did so with distortions, half-truths and out right lies about its content.
That is when "Impartial" Science's credibility eroded to "zero" for me.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: The reality is that much of "Science" is a scam business promoting whatever current fantasy will generate the most money. There's a long line of tiny hidden news stories about "scientists", "medical researchers" etc, creatively interpreting results in ways that will generate the most income.
It is amazing how many of these "open-minded" Science-types have never read the Bible, yet continue to lie about its supposed "inaccuracies".
Have you ever read the Bible Futureplanet?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 "Genesis accurately the evolution of life". This I gotta hear. Please can you give me the passages in the bible that describe DNA replication, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and survival of the fittest.
Amazing no in the history of planet earth ever saw or mentioned those passages until just now! I think you better get ready for your nobel prize.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Again, you can't see the forest for the trees, can you? So hung up in details that you are clueless to the overall picture.
Genesis 1 1:31 in broad terms places the development of life in the same order that modern science has. Genesis order of development: universe, earth, light, water, land/sea formation, plants, sun,moon, ocean life, birds, land creatures, man.
Genesis says that on primordial Earth, plants appeared even before the skies cleared!
Amazing!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
CONT: I'll ask again Futureplanet have you read the Bible?
I'm curious to see how "open-minded" you really are.
Although I'm not an expert in Evolutionary Theory by any stretch, I have read outlines of past and present ideas on the theory, in order to evaluate what seems valid and what seems questionable.
Likewise, I've read Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler for the same reasons, although I am by no means a Marxist or a Nazi. Just curious about the good/bad of their ideas.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Genesis says earth BEFORE sun. Totally hyterically wrong. Can't you see the forest? Religions are ancient myths...That's the forest. The tree in front of you is the details of the bible, that you cling to.
The big picture is the history of man, religion and other myths. That's the forest and I get it.
1. HUMANS INVENT RELIGIONS. FACT.
2. HUMANS WILL FOLLOW ANY RELGIONS THEY ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. FACT.
You are no exception. Caught in the usual myths and details.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet In a forming universe, light, other planets and star systems would have existed before our solar system. Clearly light would have existed long before our own sun. On primordial Earth, how long do you think it would have taken for the swirling mists, vapors and gasses to evolve into our present atmosphere and sky, revealing the sun, moon and stars?
Intellectually honest Scientists, interested in truth, would admit that the Genesis order of creation mirrors modern thought.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 What are you talking about! This is not an opinion.
in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Earth first. Before light, before stars.
How do you think iron is made? How are all heavy metals formed? Do some more looking up and learning. You did it before.
Stop with the second guessing, and investigate the evidence. I can't spend my life educating on the up to date finds of biology, chemistry and physics.
The bible is completely wrong. PERIOD.
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet The heavens, created before the earth include material to form stars before light appeared. Earth and its future solar system is part of the swirling mass of universe creation. Then light appeared as stars and solar systems formed. Seems fairly straightforward and in line with the pattern modern science has laid out.
I can see it as I imagine most others can. You won't see it, because the Bible MUST be a lie for your delusion to work.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet "The Bible is completely wrong. PERIOD".
Archaeology and history have proven the Bible incredibly accurate beyond question. Screaming lies will not make them true, only draw attention to the lie.
It is people like you who ended my agnostic era, by forcing me to read the Bible, to see how the "book of fairy tales" as you refer to it, could fool people for thousands of years.
The lies, distortions and half-truths of people like you then came fully to light.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Are you just making this stuff up? Or did you read a few physics books?
So, the heavens are what? space? Space dust?
The bible clearly says STARS after the "heavens and Earth" It's wrong. Pure and simple.
So, you can have stars with have no light? If they are big enough to be stars (ie. ignite) then they will make light.
Look, it's just wrong. It reads just as all the other relgions. Why can't you understand that? Another creation myth, just like the others. ALL WRONG
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet You can't handle the fact that Genesis has the formation of the Universe right thousands of years before modern Science existed to confirm it. Such a fact won't allow your delusion to exist, so you have to deny it.
I have had precisely the same experience when I used the words of the Bible to confront others in their distortions, lies, and half-truths about the "Book of Fairy Tales" as you call it.
Your objectivity is a myth, and your credibility a ""fairy tale".
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@glnelson1956 Genesis, what came first, the Earth or the Stars.
Take a look. And tell me what Genesis says. Earth first? Or stars first?
It's there black and white. No distortions, lies and half-truths.
Look for the word Earth, and then look for the word Stars.
What is it?
Futureplanet 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Genesis says "Heavens" first ahead of earth. "Heavens" includes stars, planets, solar systems, black holes, etc. It is clear as a bell.
The very first sentence in Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Genesis doesn't say "In the beginning God created the earth and the heavens".
Clear as bell to anyone reading it, other than those with an agenda of lies, distortions and half-truths.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet You are a prime example of why my agnosticism melted away. For years I listed to others of your type, put down the Bible as a "book of fairy tales" as you put it. Then I read the Bible, out of curiosity. That's when I discovered that the "enlightened types" putting the Bible down were doing so with half-truths, distortions and outright lies.
How "enlightened" and intellectually honest is one who puts down a book he has never read?
Have you read the Bible, Futureplanet?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet I'm a natural agnostic about most things in this world. I know man pretty well. I take scientific theories and "facts" with a huge grain of salt. Why? Because Scientists are people, just as corrupt and open to bribery as most. Scientific Theories develop along the line of who is paying the most money.
The "Man-caused Global Warming Scam"' that is beginning to unravel is just one of many frauds Science has gifted to mankind.
"Medicine" is the biggest scam of all!
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont: When we really begin to look at the "man behind the curtain" we see REALITY and it ain't pretty. Regardless of which profession looked into, Education, Religion, Politics, Law Enforcement, Legal, etc. we discover that a large percentage of PEOPLE are pretty disgusting overall and not to be trusted. Most are greedy, close-minded, self-centered and amoral. I wouldn't trust their view on a sunrise unless I looked myself, regardless of being a "Scientist", "Professor", whatever.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
Cont: So if you want to believe in evolution, fine. If you want to believe that Jesus is a fiction, fine. You could drop dead today and it would have no effect on my life, so it's pointless for me to care anyway.
But I will tell you this. Check the money trail behind the guys peddling the latest "theory" on evolution, "Jesus a fiction", Global Warming, or whatever snake oil they are pushing, before you emotionally commit to the "reality" they are paid to present.
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet Science cannot explain gravity, electricity, nuclear reactions, evolution or life. We have developed "Theories" in each of these areas that allow us to measure, predict, harness and put each of these "studies" to some use. But we really do not know if our "theories" are correct.
Science cannot bring a dead dog back to life, because Science simply does not know the origins of Life or even what Life is.
cont:
glnelson1956 6 months ago
@Futureplanet, Cont: Science cannot explain how a person, dead with no brain function or heart function, can describe in incredible detail, Medical conversations with the team working on him, accurately describe family conversations occurring 3 floors below them, accurately identify items on the hospital roof 10 floors up, & visit a "new world" meeting long-dead relatives they never knew existed.
Science weakly says "hallucinations".
How can a no-activity brain & heart "hallucinate"?
glnelson1956 6 months ago
This isn't evidence of anything other than that these writers had heard stories about Jesus, as most of us have.
6minutestomidnight 7 months ago
jesus is a man made name and it's less than 400 years old. This is the reason why you'll never find a thing on that name. Don't believe me, just do your own research. Start with the Hebrew name Yahushua and than the truth will come out. Pray about it first with a pure heart. The Father's name is Yahuwah. Peace to you all
truebelieving 7 months ago
That's funny ! All the emperor's got a hook nose :>/
007feedback 7 months ago
And that means, it is religion itself which gives the "devil" his power. If no one gave two shits about any of it, the God of said religion would be no more. Man is not dependent upon gods. It is the gods that are dependent upon men. If god didn't believe in man, man would still be here. If man didn't believe in God, Man would still be here. See how that works?
Listening to a christian or a church worship god is identical to listening to people worship the sun or the moon. Silliness!
AClRCLEOFLlGHT 7 months ago
Trying to prove Jesus lived is no different than trying to prove Gandhi lived. It doesn't make him anything more than a popular cult phenomenon of his time. Proving he lived doesn't prove truth to the stories written about him, especially when you have multiple differing stories, written by people who didn't even know him.
Deception is the tool of the devil, yet faith is the only means to which deception can even take place. You have to believe without knowing, leaving room to be deceived.
AClRCLEOFLlGHT 7 months ago
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT Jesus Christ lived & was put to death as the historical record proves, an unremarkable event other than being recorded history. What IS remarkable, is that according to witnesses, Jesus was buried in a tomb, and then 3 days later rose from the dead, and then went out among his followers for 40 days as proof. Then in front of witnesses, he ascended to heaven.
If true, your statements are worthless smoke. SOMETHING happened, as it remains conversation 2000 years later.
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@ACIRCLEOFLIGHT It is very easy for you to prove that Jesus Christ was a con man, and Christianity is just another goofy religion. All you have to do is find the tomb of Jesus, and his bones inside. Then I'll join you in giving a belated Academy Award to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul as their collective "Acts" were one hell of a show!
In fairness, I must warn you that, so far, it has been a fruitless 2000 year-old quest.
Will you keep me posted on your progress? Thanks!
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 : Lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence against. The holy grail was never found either, that must mean its real right? No one has been able to find thor's hammer, or the sasquach, I guess since there's no evidence to prove they don't exist, we must conclude that they do?
AClRCLEOFLlGHT 7 months ago
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT We know Thor is Norse mythology because there are no accounts of his existence other than mythology. The "Holy Grail" has no Biblical account, so its existence is a question mark. Jesus' birth, ministry & death has been verified in MANY Greek, Roman, and Jewish historical accounts independent of the Biblical account. If that's not proof, then we must also doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar and many others with FAR less historical proof than Jesus!
glnelson1956 7 months ago
@glnelson1956 : The mere suggestion that "eye witnesses" can verify the resurrection proves they are liars does it not? As according to the gospels, no one witnessed it as it happened. Do you know how many "religious" eyewitnesses there are for millions of other fallacies from all religions? Any idea? Please explain how yours is different.
And the idea that it being discussed somehow makes it true by default, would make Islam more true by the same standard of reason would it not?
AClRCLEOFLlGHT 7 months ago