The figure of Jesus in the New Testament is a hobbled-together amalgamation of various savior figures in and bordering the Roman Empire. Was Jesus nailed up on the eve of Passover? Sure. Jesus ben Pandira!! But he comes 100 years too early!!! It's really sad and pathetic that people can't see this mythological figure for what he is.
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that ok hahah and youre mixing christian faith with greek mythology hahah thats funny Jesus was a Jew that had nothing really to do with the greeks. this is dumb
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that ok hahah and youre mixing christian faith with greek mythology hahah thats funny Jesus was a Jew that had nothing really to do with the greeks
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that
No need for a history proof anymore, Jesus is effecting people's lives every single day, and that thing dude doesn't need history, books or theories, it's beyond all that.
Xianity is basically a program to destroy minds,souls and make the populace fearful and unknowing...Not a religion...The concept or religion was corrupted because of these nasty,dirty,lying and stolen (from predating of them) religions...They are just insanity copies of jewish spacemen. The populace needs to gain information,learn,experiance...And advance to the next generation...here where no fires exist,and here where one lifts another up...Not in fear of hell,but for humanity as species.
If I had a magnet and lifted shit with it 2000 years ago,all women would give Me a blowjob,and all men would proclaim Me messiah...You get what I'm saying.
If John Lennon or Gandhi lived back in antiquity you can bet that the common legends would have formed around them, born of a virgin, sent from God, etc. People were magical thinkers back then and the great men of their time OBVIOUSLY turned into these supernatural figures. Jesus was a great moral teacher, probably very charismatic and smart who had a large following. When he was killed for rubbing the powers that be the wrong way, years later legends started. It's obviously the case.
you deny that Jesus is the Messiah? wow, are you so eager to deny that Jesus died for you? i just don't understand why you want to throw away the love of God.....
@JasperDale The Creator is all powerful and needs no help from any lords, Gods, or saviors. To disclaim the reality of Jesus has no effect on the love of God. The love of God is evident by the life He has prepared for you after you leave this one.
@JasperDale You know im so damn sick of this blood sacrifice. Thousands of men died for my freedom and many were tortured for months or years opposed to having one bad afternoon. THEY died for your freedom and mine. Besides, did Jesus have a choice? he HAD to die because HE set it up that way, and many people were crucified during the Roman Empire.
Its seems that what is known today as "substance abuse" is not a new phenomenon. The Mythical stories are directly related to the use of the Entheogenic substances that have been used for many many thousands of years.
The Hallucinogenic experience is THE most mystical experience the human mind can ever have. What religion is, is a telling of someone else's experience whilst under the effects of the hallucinogen. Add a thousand years of story telling, and you have what we call Religions.
Yup, all these prophetic themes foretoled the coming of the son of God - Yahweh / Jehovah incarnate. If the son of God was to appear at some moment in time, of course something that big would be experienced through the collective unconscious mind, which was designed and directed by God's active force, the Holy Spirit, which animates all life. These alleged parallels simly are pretexts of that coming truth. One God, and His name is Jesus Christ, as manifested in the flesh to relate the fallen.
This is the reason that now we have thousands of denominations is because everyone reads the Bible however they feel...which is your choice.
However, if you read the entire chapter (John 14) Jesus is speaking directly to Thomas and Philip) In the whole chapter Jesus used "I", "I am", "me" multiple times...how more direct can a person be?
This is clearly not a parable/allegory if you read his other parables (but please read the entire chapter.)
well, periodically i get comments from all kinds of people with difference titles. Such as negative atheism which is in sync with skepticism, the denial that a person can know either that God exists or does not exist, but some agnostics conclude that one should suspend ones belief (known as agnostic atheism). Other agnostics choose to believe in a theistic God on the basis of faith (known as agnostic theism).
I try to response to all my atheists (or not, or maybe, or in between) friends.
Strong's Concordance is of the KJV. Douay Bible is better. Dr William Fulke, a Puritan, tried to discredit DB. The results, protestants were dissatisfied with their versions. The irony, Protestant didn't allow comments of historical value in their bible. Reason- all they need is the Holy Spirit. Now, after over 30-thousand denominations, its clear that maybe its ok to include comments/notes for the reader. BTW-concordances of the Bible are the invention of the friars (Dominican order)
Jesus mother was not a ROYAL virgin, she was just a random peasant girl. His father was not a king, he was just a random carpenter. He got two kerchings that should have been urr-urr!s
in the bible they "show" how mary is related to King David. they also do the same thing for joseph in a seperate gospel "showing" his relation to david, which is silly since joseph isn't supposed to be his biological father.
i think this is a propaganda of this time, i think they created some of the characters and made it similer to Jesus (peace be upon him) to drag people down to athieasim
and i think one of those people who spoke are jew, which they deny christ that he was sent from God as prophet "as we muslims believe" n yea jews r waiting for their Christ to come
so when the False christ "anti-christ with new world order thing" comes they will go toward him and leave the Real Jesus(peace be upon him)
@kazokaki: the greeks did a good job writeing it all down 2000 years before christ. pick up a history book if you love the truth as much as us, the atheists!
after all, it doesn't come down whether Jesus existed or not, it comes down whether he was truly the son of God or just a revolutionary prophet who got killed because of his teachings and visions?
miv3c: You must not have thought it out. If Jesus never existed then he COULDN'T have been the messiah. If Jesus never existed then he COULDN'T have been 'just a revolutionary prophet who got killed'. Instead, if Jesus never existed then the whole religion is simply a new Pagan religion founded in the faith/belief in a new Pagan god.
If he never existed then another prophet would've become the 'favorite' messiah of our history.
But why was he the 'messiah' then? Because he was revolutionary. He never stood in one place. He traveled, he taught and recieved a wide multitude of followers. Just because he had such an impact on people's life (more importantly on key-history persons such as Constantine) doesn't PROVE his true divinity. Fans are the ones who make a celebrity.
Perhaps, but even if Jesus never existed then people would still believe he did exist.
There are two crucial people to the rise and domination of Christianity, -Paul and Constantine. Remove one or both, and there would be no Christianity today. Christinaity would have died out ages ago w/out these two men.
At the rise of Christianity, Atheism and Agnosticism was slowly growing, especialy as people lost faith in 'the gods'. Remember that Christianity was forced via State Religion.
Remove Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. would still exsit. George Washington and Ben Franklin were key players in the formation of the U.S. so their removal would drastically change it.
Unfortuanty, you fail to realize that likewise Paul and Constantine are absolutely vital to Christianity. There would be no Christianity today if it wasn't for these two people.
These were just example based on your logic. Again, I agree that they are very important figures, but to simply state that "remove Paul..and there would be no Christianity". You could make the same argument for any institution. I think using the logic of removing key figures to determine your conclusion is simply flaw.
You aren't getting it. My logic was sound. 'You could make the same arguement for any institution'. -Absolutley Correct. This doesn't downplay the significance. Remove Paul or Constantine and we dont' have Christianity. Remove the founding fathers and we don't have the U.S.
Your logic is sound because you're conditioning your premises. If this is the case, any argument can become sound or in that case true - nice try with logic but it is not a good way to study history - if thats what you were trying to demonstrate.
My logic is quite sound because I was discussing pivotal people, in this case people pivotal toward Christianity. Your attempt at dismissing it is trite. The only way you can dismiss the logic of my statement is to downplay the importance of Paul and Constantine. If you attempt such than my obvious question would be, Then why so much significanceon the writtings of Paul?
i think Jesus Christ (peace and blessing be upon him) never heard a religion called christianity and he never my followers are christians when he was preaching, i think humans created this religion, but based on some of the orginal message which u can count them with ur fingers.
The Church is not merely a sectarian religious society. Jesus speaks of personally building this new community on the confession of His lordship (Matt, 16:18-19). The apostles recognized the birth of the Church at Pentecost as the work of Jesus Himself. At Pentecost(Acts 2:14-39), Peter tied the events there to the promises of a Davidic Messiah (2 Sam. 7; Pss. 16; 110). The NT describes the Church; body of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23, 30), "new man" (Eph.2:14-15) and others.
You are correct. The first few centuries, people rarely used the term christian, but instead used the term believer, disciple (universal community). It was only after a few false teachers received "secret revelation" or emphasized only one part of the first century apostles' teachings and began to create their own beliefs-nowadays, we called it-denominations. Don't pay too much attention to labels. We all need to pay more attention to Jesus message and not about what you tag yourself.
One truth has more value than 100 lies. One truth: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 One hundred lies: Jesus is a myth Jesus is not god Jesus never existed Jesus was only spirit Jesus was only a man Jesus was only a good man Etc Etc Etc
I dont get the joke NB. you have an akward sense of humor. but seeing you spam the pages with your religious lies I will dismiss you as a lost case. feel insulted!
here is some news for you: not everyone on this planet speaks english as their first language. before you tell me to learn to spell I would tell you to learn some languages other than your mother tongue. also I would inform you that youtube is an international gathering. insulting people from other countries for making spelling and grammar mistakes in your own, that is 0/10 for style.
Jesus never lived. I have seen so many proofs for that now that nobody can ever make me believe in Jesus anymore. It's great, christianity becomes much easier to fight now that we know there never was any Jesus. :)
Perhaps then you were never one in the first place, not in truth. If you are of one religion then you remain part of that religion all your life, according to most atheists and Dawkins. So how can you state "I am not an Xtian anymore" Just curious.
fernfaerie: It depends on what it is. For example, The Egyptians myths stated that Osiris and Isis were the first king and queen of Egypt, but I'm sure overtime people stopped believing it. Overtime, nobody believed in a 'historical Osiris', but favored a 'Mytical Osiris'. We see the same transformation controversy today with people claiming that Jesus wasn't a historical figure either.
Add to this that there is not one bit of contemporaneous historical attestation for Jesus. Only in the bible...which is a contradictory joke. Do you want to worship a god that orders babies killed? There is not a shred of evidence. Jesus is a Myth....the archetypal Hero Myth. Same as Isis/Horus and all the other savior gods.
You have horrible historical methodology just as all Christ-myth proponents do.
Historians do not throw out an ancient source because it contains contradictions or mistakes. If they did that, there would be no historians! Do you think that historians only deal with flawless texts or something? That would be absurd.
Not a shred of evidence? What? Read A.N. Sherwin-White's work. He was president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.
Fellow atheists: Although this won't win ANY debate points (And I can understand this being offensive to some) Just mock the christians god every once in a while. Watch them go apeshit like those strap-a-bomb-on-me muslims. Just call Jesus an abomination, a worthless pile of pigshit, a mindless superstition, or the most evil monstrosity ever spawned from the deluded, dark minds of religious frauds....And watch the fireworks display, it is quite entertaining! They just gnash their teeth in anger.
This is not something new, The Holy Quran said it clear: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! Al-Qur'an, 009.030
Ah, yet another moron believing a video on Youtube is actually based on FACT.
How very sad. Shame there is more evidence that Jesus lived than there is for Julius Caesar. But hey, you don't need facts with you have arrogance by the cartload and are as ignorant as s**t! LOL
Suetonius, Ptolomy, Pliny and even Roman records, look them up. Julius Caesar only has a few political records and the gaul campaign records. In both Julius is recorded as leaving the campaigns to generals, and working more as a politican than anything else, which led to his assassination due to his lack of interest in anything beyond the political sphere.
The only mention of Christ outside of the Bible are a few mentions of "Christos" and that is a title, not a proper name. One might think that if a man died and rose again that this news would have been recorded in multiple official city documents and elaborated on greatly. Jesus is just the newest version of an old story dating back to the Sumerians (maybe earlier). Google: Jesus Horus Connetion
Well of course it only "really happened" once... Two men say they are jesus, of them MUST be wrong.
Jesus = criminal put to death for stealing. True story. Documented by Roman historians.
Jesus Chris = son of god, died for you sins. Mythical story.
The fact that Christians dont know of his childhood actually PROVES, beyond reasonable doubt, its all a made up story . Its 100% evidence of the fictitious nature of the Gospel.
Um so if we don't know about someones childhood than they are not a real person? Where do you get the idea that Jesus was put to death for stealing from?
poetsonghotmail: The problem is that the gospels that tell about Jesus' childhood were rejected when the bible was voted on. Yes, the bible was voted on, in a committe. So a group of men decided they didn't like the books that talked about Jesus as a boy (mainly because he was an evil boy who only later grew to love people/humanity. He actualy killed people as a boy, according to these banned gospels.)
The problem with that is that the documents that talk about the his childhood outside of canonical gospels were not even considered for the Bible. They were not in wide use in the Christian communities and seem to have existed to help support the beliefs of the gnostics. Also some of these books like the The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, which tells of Jesus supposed boyhood miracles don't date until the 5th century. And even the earlier texts are not sited by authors who knew the apostles.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. They rejected them for several reasons.
However, an interesting observation about Jesus and various gods/heros is that they too don't have a complete life story. They may have birth stories, stories about important events, and then ending/death stories, but there is never a 'complete' history.
Books such as Tobit and Wisdom, would be accepted through the course of the formation of the Catholic Canon. Many books of the New Testament, such as St. Matthews gospel and most of St. Pauls epistles, were from the earliest times universally accepted; others, such as Revelation, required more time. It took over 350 years of discussion among various Church authorities to declare definitive Canon. It was not just a simply committee
It was a simple committe and it was a simple council who officialy 'closed' all debate regarding the books of the bible. Constantine wanted coherency and 'one book' and he bought and sold bishops to this idea. (MONEY) Yes, for a few centuries people bickered and argued, but the Council of Trent officialy closed all debate.
350 years of debate doesn't make the bible any less an invention of man than had it occured completely at the council of nicea.
Constantine pushed for a General Council. He wanted unity in the Empire thru a general adherence to Christianity, which was then divided over Arianism. Constantine even paid for the traveling expenses of the western Bishops to secure their involvement and resolve the problem promptly, but he did not buy their votes. He played an important role of peacemaker between the two factions, though historians doubt that he understood the subtleties in the discussions. He just wanted unity: west & east.
No, the important thing about Constantine is that he wanted one version of Christianity. This is extremely important. He wanted unity of Christianity through the promotion of one common teaching. This is where the problems arise.
No there isn't. Faith issues are not about logic , they are about man's experiences with God. However, although logic does not seem to play a part of it, that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for believing it. Also the NT, has to be seen from the context of the Old Testament, ie God making covenants with man, Christ being the 'new' covenant.
Yeah, the covenant itself is not logical. If you choose to believe in a God who gives you a brain only to ask you to discard and "believe" I just can't take you serious.
"No there isn't. Faith issues are not about logic"
alas, the futility of debating someone for whom illogic is the cornerstone of their life.
On the contrary, I don't need to 'discard' anything. Rationality is very important, but has its limitations. As someone who has studied computer logic at university, I know how useful it can be, however, logic and rationality offers far fewer explanations for human behaviour than you might think!
while human behavior it self may not be rational, there is a logic and a rational to how it works. look where is this going. logic only goes so far, there for we should believe the bible even if it seems illogical? are you from Australia by any chance(serious question)? look this whole medium is a bit cluttered and just confusing, i would love to discuss things, but not much more here.
If your own behaviour were to be analysed for instance, you may well be surprised how little of it is governed by 'rationality' at all! For example, your earnestness to disprove the Christian faith, may be less to do with what you think is 'rational thinking' and rather more to do with emotional processes!
pot meet kettle. see the thing is i use to be a christian. my earnestness is motivated by a desire to know the truth, not to disprove Christianity. Why would I want be motivated to disprove that there is a place we can live on in perfection after we die, if only we will believe in our loving father. only problem is, is the bible is full of holes.
No, I haven't exposed that at all. You have exposed your own weak points, namely that you are trying to assert that your own behaviour is purely 'rational', when rationality only accounts for a part of human behaviour. I have explained this to you, but you don't need to admit it to me. You know yourself that rationality does not account for all of your behaviour, as other higher processes and also basic instincts are equally strong driving forces in life.
Furthermore, 'rationality' cannot explain some of the things you have mentioned which took place, such as healings and raising from the dead; both of which are also practiced today by Christians.
yeah, i hear about people being raised from the dead all the time, conveniently they always happen in far away lands away from cameras. besides there is nothing irrational about someone being raised from the dead by an all powerful being. one problem, no proof that one exist.
Even if there is no borrowing in the Gospels and they are completely original does not make them any more rational. Jesus forgives sins throughout the Nt without a blood sacrifice. Then Paul informs us that a blood sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness?
I'm glad that you're reading the NT. It does take some reading and study to understand it. Just to clarify what you are asking: Jesus died 'as a blood sacrifice' for sin. Paul confirms that in the Old Testament, blood sacrifices were required for payment for sin. Paul is actually saying that men should look to Jesus as the sacrifice for their sin, so that they can have forgiveness from God.
i'm not reading it. i have read it. what i'm saying is, if Jesus could forgive sins without having to be put to death, why did he have to be put to death in order to be able to do what he was already doing.
they have probably evolved their own superstitions, saviors with different names, who do different things in order to save their people. Maybe Jezuez of the planet Goam, descended upon Mount Boab, and took a big steamy one allowing his prophet Bob to smell it. anyone who believes Bob smelled it is saved. Would make just as much sense.
"He's just another religious hero figure like many others before him" - how do you know? Are you sure? It might be worth finding out, before you come to that conclusion. The reasons I believe that he wasnt just another figure, is because I have thought long and hard about it; have studied the scriptures; and have invited Christ into my life. The experience that I had when I did this, is something I will never forget!
Just because archaeology is proofing that some buildings or even cities really existed doesn't proof that characters from the Bible placed within them were real.
How many novels speak of real places but the characters of the story are fictional?
That's a very weak argument, if I may say so. Archaeological discoveries are adding some very solid evidence that was previously lacking, to the Bible accounts. If you can demonstrate that some of the places recorded in the Bible are actually hidden underground you are at least part way there in 'proving' the stories on environmental grounds.
Of course if you as a person, insist on being negative in your approach to considering the possibility that the gospels are true accounts, then you will be the last to realise the validity of them. You must answer to yourself for that. Regarding 'novels', well most novels state on the book somewhere that it is a novel and not a true story. The gospels do not state anywhere that they are novels for fictional reading or entertainment.
'Common decency' has little to do with it. It presupposes a set of conditions similar to our own today, in which the gospels were recorded, copied and handed down. The fact that we have the gospels at all is very significant. Bear in mind that these writings came through periods of horrendous persecution.
So if you want to be 'rational' about it, you might like to consider the process by which they did arrive to us, rather than your magical idea that they were nice little writings neatly signed by the authors like today.
hahaha! my magical ideas. your the one who believes in a sky daddy and his zombie son. so let me get this straight, God can raise Jesus from the dead, but can't deliver the gospel down to us with no uncertainty about their date, author or veracity. Why call him God?
and again on this issue of common knowledge. look at jesus' own time. not one contemporary mentions him. that is significant when the gospels claim he was going all over the land healing the sick, raising the dead and drawing town sized crowds to listen to him. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. what you have provided isn't even mediocre evidence.
We have to learn from the records and accounts that we have. Starting with the gospels, then the Letters of Paul, John, Peter and James etc; then the writings of the early church fathers, who quoted extensively from the earliest first century manuscripts - taking all these into account will involve you in a long term study to start with.
hope i don't die and go to hell before i'm done working toward salvation through intellectual works. see above comment. i don't need to read all those manuscripts.
i was born an atheist, had religion taught to me, looked at another point of view, now i'm an atheist again. you admit that the christian scheme of salvation is not sound logically, that ends the discussion. why would i go to the trouble of finding out if Jesus lived or not, that fact says it all. if there were a God, do you really think he would be a nut case and ask us to believe things that are silly?
I do believe that God is real. The reason is not just because of what it says in the Bible, important as that is, or because some other people believe it. The reason I believe is because of some experiences that I have had. My first experience of meeting the Presence of God, was aged 24, and I thought I'd 'give God a chance!', so I asked Jesus to forgive me and come into my life.
The result was not only instantaneous and dramatic, but life changing! Suddenly I wondered why the world had changed and then I began to realise that it was me that had changed, RADICALLY.
i have had "god experiences" also. at first i had them as a christian, then as a buddhist. now i have an experience that to is far superior. pure conscious experiences(PCE).
When I talk about experiences, I'm not just referring to mental or emotional experiences, but rather to seeing God doing things around me. There is nothing superior to Jesus Christ, as He is the Word of God who made not just our consciences but also the universe.
do i what? sorry, this is confusing. oh yeah, i think I found the vid you are talking about. watching it now. i mean a video in and of it self would not be proof, you understand that right? you would be skeptical for instance of a footage of the big foot, right. but it is a start for an investigation.
so you say this particular execution was documented? how about the thousands of others? and if christ execution was documented for the reasons given(we don't know this to be true), why did no one else alive at that time write about it?
too hard to believe that we have no historians word from that time. god can do anything, why not inspire or at least have many historians in a position to document it all. did he want to leave it vague so that we could have faith. what a tricky god you worship.
Tacitus was in a uniquely priveleged position as Roman Governor of Asia. He had access to all the Roman records he needed and which were available at the time. To answer your question, we don't know that no one else wrote about it. The reality is that it is a very rare thing to find ANY first century writings AT ALL!
Most writings were done on papyrus which disintegrated after a time. If these writings were not copied before the disintegration they were of course lost. Then there is the reason that someone who is in 'authority' is more likely to have their writings copied than someone who is not. At that time, the people who were in authority, were not really wanting ANY attention to be given to Jesus, so writing about it would not make a lot of sense.
Then you can branch out and study evidences external to the Bible. The amount of ancient manuscripts available for study is well in excess of 5000. I would not call that 'mediocre'! Until you have studied these sources, I wouldn't think you could pass judgement on them at all, can you?
so you have studied all 5000 manuscripts then mate? how about the koran? how about the tibetan book of the dead? you would find it absurd if i told you that rejecting those books before reading them was lacking in integrity.
You have to start somewhere! The point I am making to you is that there is so much to learn, that it is premature to dismiss the scripture's authenticity without having really applied serious study to them. As an aside, I am looking into the Koran, since you mentioned it, as it makes claims to be from the Judeo Christian tradition (which is not really correct and it doesn't take long to find out why).
"The point I am making to you is that there is so much to learn, that it is premature to dismiss the scripture's authenticity without having really applied serious study to them."
so you're going to study all the worlds scriptures before rejecting them, right?
I am certainly interested to learn about other religions, their beliefs and writings, yes. However, my own experiences of God that I have mentioned are enough for me to know that the gospels have God's authority.
I don't have sufficient evidence to doubt the gospels or the authenticity of the their history or message. Neither do I doubt Christ or his life and crucifiction. Consider the facts: the earliest writings were on materials like papyrus, which disintegrated after a short while. They therefore had to be copied word for word and the earliest manuscript we have for John's gospel is 29 years after the events they describe - not bad under the circumstances!
Also, the Bible contains prophecies. These are writings that in some way predict future events. Some of these prophecies are very interesting, such as: the prophecies of the jewish diaspora, which happened after AD 70; the prophesy of Jesus that the monumental Jewish Temple would be destroyed (something unthinkable at the time);
unless of course it was written after the fact. I mean you don't think we know the gospel dates down to the exact year do you? we have ample evidence that they went through revisions.
See I always look for a simple rational explanation, not some otherworldly magic one.
I'm not an authority on the gospel dates. However, I would suggest that the gospel date is reasonably accurate and that Pontius Pilate's proven holding of the title Procurator in the years AD 26 - 36, confirms this for us.
re: Revisions - The oldest Greek manuscript fragment that we have is dated 29 years after its orginal was written, well within the living memory of a man and as it happens to be from John's gospel, we know that he lived to be quite an old man. I think the next one is 130 years after its original, the "Bodmer Papyrus", containing the gospel of John.
I have always read consensus is that the first gospel was written somewhere around seventy. 29 years after the original? How was that date obtained? And in the end, who cares? Men don't die for three days and come back to life. Animals don't talk, and a man flying up into the sky is just stupid.
Examination of these texts demonstrate that the essential story of the gospel remains intact from the earliest copies of John that we have. The 'revisions' that you speak of neither disprove the existence of Christ nor the gospel account of Christ's life and crucifiction.
So you think that the Old Testament prophecies of the Jewish diaspora and the return of the Jews to Israel were written after they happened? That would make some parts of the Old Testament written in the latter half of the 20 Century! Do you see the irrational argument of this!
Thanks, that's an interesting site. I will have a good look at it, but there's so much text, it will take me weeks to read through it all! It is fascinating that someone has gone to so much trouble to build that site to try and argue against Christianity! It's quite a compliment that people take it so seriously - and yes, they should!
It is fascinating that people care so much about what is true that they would go to all that trouble to create a site that gives people the tools to set themselves free of superstition. ain't life grand.
The figure of Jesus in the New Testament is a hobbled-together amalgamation of various savior figures in and bordering the Roman Empire. Was Jesus nailed up on the eve of Passover? Sure. Jesus ben Pandira!! But he comes 100 years too early!!! It's really sad and pathetic that people can't see this mythological figure for what he is.
EnnoiaBlog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that ok hahah and youre mixing christian faith with greek mythology hahah thats funny Jesus was a Jew that had nothing really to do with the greeks. this is dumb
sonic236415 8 months ago
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that ok hahah and youre mixing christian faith with greek mythology hahah thats funny Jesus was a Jew that had nothing really to do with the greeks
sonic236415 8 months ago
@sonic236415 zomg your a moron. Of course they would never make the story of Jesus and Horus the same, otherwise, it would be called plagiarism.
MaxBlight 8 months ago
ok then hahah this is funny this is funny because he was put in a tumb not buried and well he resurected in three days and well there is nothing you can say to that
sonic236415 8 months ago
No need for a history proof anymore, Jesus is effecting people's lives every single day, and that thing dude doesn't need history, books or theories, it's beyond all that.
comali2212 9 months ago
What is xtian?
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan xtian is short for christian or ex-christian, depends on usage.
raficsulejmanovic 10 months ago
@raficsulejmanovic THX!
wachnathan 10 months ago
@extremotheclown I'm quite awake, thank you. There must be some meaning to your message, but I am unable to perceive it.
k0smon 1 year ago
Of course, jesus is myth. He died like we will die, someday !
1111goodmorning 1 year ago
Xianity is basically a program to destroy minds,souls and make the populace fearful and unknowing...Not a religion...The concept or religion was corrupted because of these nasty,dirty,lying and stolen (from predating of them) religions...They are just insanity copies of jewish spacemen. The populace needs to gain information,learn,experiance...And advance to the next generation...here where no fires exist,and here where one lifts another up...Not in fear of hell,but for humanity as species.
Sezmonz 1 year ago
If I had a magnet and lifted shit with it 2000 years ago,all women would give Me a blowjob,and all men would proclaim Me messiah...You get what I'm saying.
Sezmonz 1 year ago
If John Lennon or Gandhi lived back in antiquity you can bet that the common legends would have formed around them, born of a virgin, sent from God, etc. People were magical thinkers back then and the great men of their time OBVIOUSLY turned into these supernatural figures. Jesus was a great moral teacher, probably very charismatic and smart who had a large following. When he was killed for rubbing the powers that be the wrong way, years later legends started. It's obviously the case.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please look at my channel. It contains an actual photograph of God. Thank you.
656Devin 1 year ago
ΘΑ ΚΛΙΝΗ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ
ΠΑΝ ΓΟΝΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΑ ΓΛΩΣΣΑ ΘΑ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΣΗ
ΟΤΙ Ο ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ
ΕΙΣ ΔΟΞΑ ΘΕΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ
ΟΠΟΙΟΣ ΕΧΕΙ ΠΙΣΤΗ ΣΥΜΜΑΧΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟ ΤΟΝ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΩ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΟΠΟΙΟΣ ΕΧΕΙ ΠΙΣΤΗ ΣΥΜΜΑΧΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟ ΤΟΝ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΩ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ
ifestionas1 1 year ago
what fools
shaybird76 1 year ago
#8 Does apply the Jesus character went to Egypt as a baby to escape Herod. His earthly father Joseph was a foster parent.
Maber01 1 year ago
you deny that Jesus is the Messiah? wow, are you so eager to deny that Jesus died for you? i just don't understand why you want to throw away the love of God.....
JasperDale 1 year ago
@JasperDale The Creator is all powerful and needs no help from any lords, Gods, or saviors. To disclaim the reality of Jesus has no effect on the love of God. The love of God is evident by the life He has prepared for you after you leave this one.
k0smon 1 year ago
@JasperDale You know im so damn sick of this blood sacrifice. Thousands of men died for my freedom and many were tortured for months or years opposed to having one bad afternoon. THEY died for your freedom and mine. Besides, did Jesus have a choice? he HAD to die because HE set it up that way, and many people were crucified during the Roman Empire.
MercuryRis 1 year ago
Its seems that what is known today as "substance abuse" is not a new phenomenon. The Mythical stories are directly related to the use of the Entheogenic substances that have been used for many many thousands of years.
The Hallucinogenic experience is THE most mystical experience the human mind can ever have. What religion is, is a telling of someone else's experience whilst under the effects of the hallucinogen. Add a thousand years of story telling, and you have what we call Religions.
123backinyerface 1 year ago
Comment removed
123backinyerface 1 year ago
Yup, all these prophetic themes foretoled the coming of the son of God - Yahweh / Jehovah incarnate. If the son of God was to appear at some moment in time, of course something that big would be experienced through the collective unconscious mind, which was designed and directed by God's active force, the Holy Spirit, which animates all life. These alleged parallels simly are pretexts of that coming truth. One God, and His name is Jesus Christ, as manifested in the flesh to relate the fallen.
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
Thank you :)
Youlube32 2 years ago
OOOOOOOO!!! Pray tell which apologist and which Gnostic Gospel?
Youlube32 2 years ago
I thought genealogies tended to follow the male line though?
Youlube32 2 years ago
He's not from the line of David?
Youlube32 2 years ago
Well, the evidence is right in front of your. Obviously, it is your choice to believe it or not.
I guess you have all the power, as the saying goes, knowledge is power.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
This is the reason that now we have thousands of denominations is because everyone reads the Bible however they feel...which is your choice.
However, if you read the entire chapter (John 14) Jesus is speaking directly to Thomas and Philip) In the whole chapter Jesus used "I", "I am", "me" multiple times...how more direct can a person be?
This is clearly not a parable/allegory if you read his other parables (but please read the entire chapter.)
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
well, periodically i get comments from all kinds of people with difference titles. Such as negative atheism which is in sync with skepticism, the denial that a person can know either that God exists or does not exist, but some agnostics conclude that one should suspend ones belief (known as agnostic atheism). Other agnostics choose to believe in a theistic God on the basis of faith (known as agnostic theism).
I try to response to all my atheists (or not, or maybe, or in between) friends.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
Strong's Concordance is of the KJV. Douay Bible is better. Dr William Fulke, a Puritan, tried to discredit DB. The results, protestants were dissatisfied with their versions. The irony, Protestant didn't allow comments of historical value in their bible. Reason- all they need is the Holy Spirit. Now, after over 30-thousand denominations, its clear that maybe its ok to include comments/notes for the reader. BTW-concordances of the Bible are the invention of the friars (Dominican order)
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
Yes, I have studied some in the original language.
Now wise one, please tell me what do YOU think is says in the original language?
BTW, funny thing about atheist -- When unable to support their so called truth, reduce their arguments and themselves with insults!
Again, funny, funny, funny!!
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
typical atheist, when can't support their so called truth
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
Jesus said, "anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"
markch9v23 2 years ago
*awkward
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
so how did god's sperm get into mary's fallopian tube?
ukidding 2 years ago
Jesus mother was not a ROYAL virgin, she was just a random peasant girl. His father was not a king, he was just a random carpenter. He got two kerchings that should have been urr-urr!s
beckfiddler 2 years ago
in the bible they "show" how mary is related to King David. they also do the same thing for joseph in a seperate gospel "showing" his relation to david, which is silly since joseph isn't supposed to be his biological father.
TheEvolver311 2 years ago
That hero scale does not even make sense. What about important heroes that fit that folklore scale like Achiles and Odessyus? Bogus.
Plato86 2 years ago
achiles was the son of a godess and odessyus's father was a king
tzimisce13 2 years ago
i think this is a propaganda of this time, i think they created some of the characters and made it similer to Jesus (peace be upon him) to drag people down to athieasim
and i think one of those people who spoke are jew, which they deny christ that he was sent from God as prophet "as we muslims believe" n yea jews r waiting for their Christ to come
so when the False christ "anti-christ with new world order thing" comes they will go toward him and leave the Real Jesus(peace be upon him)
Kazokaki 2 years ago
@kazokaki: the greeks did a good job writeing it all down 2000 years before christ. pick up a history book if you love the truth as much as us, the atheists!
best wishes!
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
I wonder what score Goku has
McConsumer 3 years ago 2
What is this from?
razorflown2 3 years ago
Yea, you go over there and punch him in the face for Jesus. Nutter...
hakara87 3 years ago
after all, it doesn't come down whether Jesus existed or not, it comes down whether he was truly the son of God or just a revolutionary prophet who got killed because of his teachings and visions?
I choose to prefer the latter.
miv3c 3 years ago
miv3c: You must not have thought it out. If Jesus never existed then he COULDN'T have been the messiah. If Jesus never existed then he COULDN'T have been 'just a revolutionary prophet who got killed'. Instead, if Jesus never existed then the whole religion is simply a new Pagan religion founded in the faith/belief in a new Pagan god.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
If he never existed then another prophet would've become the 'favorite' messiah of our history.
But why was he the 'messiah' then? Because he was revolutionary. He never stood in one place. He traveled, he taught and recieved a wide multitude of followers. Just because he had such an impact on people's life (more importantly on key-history persons such as Constantine) doesn't PROVE his true divinity. Fans are the ones who make a celebrity.
miv3c 3 years ago
Perhaps, but even if Jesus never existed then people would still believe he did exist.
There are two crucial people to the rise and domination of Christianity, -Paul and Constantine. Remove one or both, and there would be no Christianity today. Christinaity would have died out ages ago w/out these two men.
At the rise of Christianity, Atheism and Agnosticism was slowly growing, especialy as people lost faith in 'the gods'. Remember that Christianity was forced via State Religion.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
Paul and Constantine. Remove one or both, and there would be no Christianity today
By this logic, if you start removing key individuals, you could change the history of any institution.
Remove Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc.
NBmachiavelli 3 years ago
Remove Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. would still exsit. George Washington and Ben Franklin were key players in the formation of the U.S. so their removal would drastically change it.
Unfortuanty, you fail to realize that likewise Paul and Constantine are absolutely vital to Christianity. There would be no Christianity today if it wasn't for these two people.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
These were just example based on your logic. Again, I agree that they are very important figures, but to simply state that "remove Paul..and there would be no Christianity". You could make the same argument for any institution. I think using the logic of removing key figures to determine your conclusion is simply flaw.
NBmachiavelli 3 years ago
You aren't getting it. My logic was sound. 'You could make the same arguement for any institution'. -Absolutley Correct. This doesn't downplay the significance. Remove Paul or Constantine and we dont' have Christianity. Remove the founding fathers and we don't have the U.S.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
Your logic is sound because you're conditioning your premises. If this is the case, any argument can become sound or in that case true - nice try with logic but it is not a good way to study history - if thats what you were trying to demonstrate.
NBmachiavelli 3 years ago
My logic is quite sound because I was discussing pivotal people, in this case people pivotal toward Christianity. Your attempt at dismissing it is trite. The only way you can dismiss the logic of my statement is to downplay the importance of Paul and Constantine. If you attempt such than my obvious question would be, Then why so much significanceon the writtings of Paul?
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
That's a humanistic view. Christ is in control of the Church and the historical process.
Apologist325 2 years ago 2
i think Jesus Christ (peace and blessing be upon him) never heard a religion called christianity and he never my followers are christians when he was preaching, i think humans created this religion, but based on some of the orginal message which u can count them with ur fingers.
Who is the spirit of truth????????
Kazokaki 2 years ago
The Church is not merely a sectarian religious society. Jesus speaks of personally building this new community on the confession of His lordship (Matt, 16:18-19). The apostles recognized the birth of the Church at Pentecost as the work of Jesus Himself. At Pentecost(Acts 2:14-39), Peter tied the events there to the promises of a Davidic Messiah (2 Sam. 7; Pss. 16; 110). The NT describes the Church; body of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23, 30), "new man" (Eph.2:14-15) and others.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
You are correct. The first few centuries, people rarely used the term christian, but instead used the term believer, disciple (universal community). It was only after a few false teachers received "secret revelation" or emphasized only one part of the first century apostles' teachings and began to create their own beliefs-nowadays, we called it-denominations. Don't pay too much attention to labels. We all need to pay more attention to Jesus message and not about what you tag yourself.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
here is a truth for you: sechular humanism rocks hooray for atheism!
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
That was funny....an atheist talking about truth....hilarious.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
I dont get the joke NB. you have an akward sense of humor. but seeing you spam the pages with your religious lies I will dismiss you as a lost case. feel insulted!
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
If you truly believe in something, at least, please learn to spell "secular humanism"
Oh boy, now that you have insulted me, I won't be able to sleep....NOT
Amazing that you come across of people that in order to make themselves feel better, have to insult others....
This is in fact very sadanother lost case.
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
here is some news for you: not everyone on this planet speaks english as their first language. before you tell me to learn to spell I would tell you to learn some languages other than your mother tongue. also I would inform you that youtube is an international gathering. insulting people from other countries for making spelling and grammar mistakes in your own, that is 0/10 for style.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
I see you're running out of arguments.
Please try again...
BTW, my "mother tongue" is NOT english.
ciao
au revoir
adiós
tchau
NBmachiavelli 2 years ago
Jesus never lived. I have seen so many proofs for that now that nobody can ever make me believe in Jesus anymore. It's great, christianity becomes much easier to fight now that we know there never was any Jesus. :)
winterstellar 3 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterstellar ..you will die in defeat.
bella50008 1 year ago
muslim hell by Mohamed ? please give me some proof of this hell. Oh and how nice and peaceful your God must be if he condems people like that! ;P
tkatschuk 3 years ago
I AM SO GLAD I AM NOT AN XTIAN ANYMORE!
KeratinizingSquamous 3 years ago 4
Perhaps then you were never one in the first place, not in truth. If you are of one religion then you remain part of that religion all your life, according to most atheists and Dawkins. So how can you state "I am not an Xtian anymore" Just curious.
Tostig56 3 years ago
This logic is flawed. If you believed something and then found out it was a lie, would you still believe it? NOPE. Unless you are in denial.
fernfaerie 3 years ago
fernfaerie: It depends on what it is. For example, The Egyptians myths stated that Osiris and Isis were the first king and queen of Egypt, but I'm sure overtime people stopped believing it. Overtime, nobody believed in a 'historical Osiris', but favored a 'Mytical Osiris'. We see the same transformation controversy today with people claiming that Jesus wasn't a historical figure either.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
Fact is..we'll never really know the truth until our time comes. The secret of death will or won't give us the real answer.
tkatschuk 3 years ago
And you be shoked to be send to Muslim hell by Mohamed
ptica11 3 years ago
Add to this that there is not one bit of contemporaneous historical attestation for Jesus. Only in the bible...which is a contradictory joke. Do you want to worship a god that orders babies killed? There is not a shred of evidence. Jesus is a Myth....the archetypal Hero Myth. Same as Isis/Horus and all the other savior gods.
Magik1369 3 years ago
Righthly said brother. Jesus was an asshole for killing babies and a Myth period!
KeratinizingSquamous 3 years ago
You have horrible historical methodology just as all Christ-myth proponents do.
Historians do not throw out an ancient source because it contains contradictions or mistakes. If they did that, there would be no historians! Do you think that historians only deal with flawless texts or something? That would be absurd.
Not a shred of evidence? What? Read A.N. Sherwin-White's work. He was president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
your points mean nothing ,robin hood lol's...joke completely....
tlndofa 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fellow atheists: Although this won't win ANY debate points (And I can understand this being offensive to some) Just mock the christians god every once in a while. Watch them go apeshit like those strap-a-bomb-on-me muslims. Just call Jesus an abomination, a worthless pile of pigshit, a mindless superstition, or the most evil monstrosity ever spawned from the deluded, dark minds of religious frauds....And watch the fireworks display, it is quite entertaining! They just gnash their teeth in anger.
DukeNukem4 3 years ago
This is not something new, The Holy Quran said it clear: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! Al-Qur'an, 009.030
nmarouene 3 years ago
haha. jesus was a myth all along. well i never! i could tell when i was 7 - probably something to do with all the MAGIC involved
andy765gtr 3 years ago
Ah, yet another moron believing a video on Youtube is actually based on FACT.
How very sad. Shame there is more evidence that Jesus lived than there is for Julius Caesar. But hey, you don't need facts with you have arrogance by the cartload and are as ignorant as s**t! LOL
Tostig56 3 years ago
can you provide me with said evidence?
K2Valor 3 years ago
Suetonius, Ptolomy, Pliny and even Roman records, look them up. Julius Caesar only has a few political records and the gaul campaign records. In both Julius is recorded as leaving the campaigns to generals, and working more as a politican than anything else, which led to his assassination due to his lack of interest in anything beyond the political sphere.
Tostig56 3 years ago
There is evidence. Why do you want evidence?
Read the book of Daniel, chapter 12: verses 9 thru 1.
All the answers start there.
cherokeenation 3 years ago
Well start q
ptica11 3 years ago
Well, start quoting your sources.
ptica11 3 years ago
The only mention of Christ outside of the Bible are a few mentions of "Christos" and that is a title, not a proper name. One might think that if a man died and rose again that this news would have been recorded in multiple official city documents and elaborated on greatly. Jesus is just the newest version of an old story dating back to the Sumerians (maybe earlier). Google: Jesus Horus Connetion
Shugodai 4 years ago 2
This is a well put together video. Check out the video "Zeitgeist" it speaks further on this.
DuppyLoLo 4 years ago
One of the most repulsive parts of the Gospels is the repetitive Antisemitism.
Lacolith 4 years ago
What a dumb thing to say. The Gospels were written by Jews, you twat!
Kabane52 4 years ago
John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
oh and calling me a twat...very mature
Lacolith 4 years ago
Well of course it only "really happened" once... Two men say they are jesus, of them MUST be wrong.
Jesus = criminal put to death for stealing. True story. Documented by Roman historians.
Jesus Chris = son of god, died for you sins. Mythical story.
The fact that Christians dont know of his childhood actually PROVES, beyond reasonable doubt, its all a made up story . Its 100% evidence of the fictitious nature of the Gospel.
isilder 4 years ago
Um so if we don't know about someones childhood than they are not a real person? Where do you get the idea that Jesus was put to death for stealing from?
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
poetsonghotmail: The problem is that the gospels that tell about Jesus' childhood were rejected when the bible was voted on. Yes, the bible was voted on, in a committe. So a group of men decided they didn't like the books that talked about Jesus as a boy (mainly because he was an evil boy who only later grew to love people/humanity. He actualy killed people as a boy, according to these banned gospels.)
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
The problem with that is that the documents that talk about the his childhood outside of canonical gospels were not even considered for the Bible. They were not in wide use in the Christian communities and seem to have existed to help support the beliefs of the gnostics. Also some of these books like the The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, which tells of Jesus supposed boyhood miracles don't date until the 5th century. And even the earlier texts are not sited by authors who knew the apostles.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. They rejected them for several reasons.
However, an interesting observation about Jesus and various gods/heros is that they too don't have a complete life story. They may have birth stories, stories about important events, and then ending/death stories, but there is never a 'complete' history.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
Books such as Tobit and Wisdom, would be accepted through the course of the formation of the Catholic Canon. Many books of the New Testament, such as St. Matthews gospel and most of St. Pauls epistles, were from the earliest times universally accepted; others, such as Revelation, required more time. It took over 350 years of discussion among various Church authorities to declare definitive Canon. It was not just a simply committee
NBmachiavelli 3 years ago
It was a simple committe and it was a simple council who officialy 'closed' all debate regarding the books of the bible. Constantine wanted coherency and 'one book' and he bought and sold bishops to this idea. (MONEY) Yes, for a few centuries people bickered and argued, but the Council of Trent officialy closed all debate.
350 years of debate doesn't make the bible any less an invention of man than had it occured completely at the council of nicea.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
Constantine pushed for a General Council. He wanted unity in the Empire thru a general adherence to Christianity, which was then divided over Arianism. Constantine even paid for the traveling expenses of the western Bishops to secure their involvement and resolve the problem promptly, but he did not buy their votes. He played an important role of peacemaker between the two factions, though historians doubt that he understood the subtleties in the discussions. He just wanted unity: west & east.
NBmachiavelli 3 years ago
No, the important thing about Constantine is that he wanted one version of Christianity. This is extremely important. He wanted unity of Christianity through the promotion of one common teaching. This is where the problems arise.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
there is no logic to the Christian scheme of salvation period. no matter how original the NT may be.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
No there isn't. Faith issues are not about logic , they are about man's experiences with God. However, although logic does not seem to play a part of it, that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for believing it. Also the NT, has to be seen from the context of the Old Testament, ie God making covenants with man, Christ being the 'new' covenant.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Yeah, the covenant itself is not logical. If you choose to believe in a God who gives you a brain only to ask you to discard and "believe" I just can't take you serious.
"No there isn't. Faith issues are not about logic"
alas, the futility of debating someone for whom illogic is the cornerstone of their life.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
On the contrary, I don't need to 'discard' anything. Rationality is very important, but has its limitations. As someone who has studied computer logic at university, I know how useful it can be, however, logic and rationality offers far fewer explanations for human behaviour than you might think!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
while human behavior it self may not be rational, there is a logic and a rational to how it works. look where is this going. logic only goes so far, there for we should believe the bible even if it seems illogical? are you from Australia by any chance(serious question)? look this whole medium is a bit cluttered and just confusing, i would love to discuss things, but not much more here.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
If your own behaviour were to be analysed for instance, you may well be surprised how little of it is governed by 'rationality' at all! For example, your earnestness to disprove the Christian faith, may be less to do with what you think is 'rational thinking' and rather more to do with emotional processes!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
pot meet kettle. see the thing is i use to be a christian. my earnestness is motivated by a desire to know the truth, not to disprove Christianity. Why would I want be motivated to disprove that there is a place we can live on in perfection after we die, if only we will believe in our loving father. only problem is, is the bible is full of holes.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
well the gig is up. you have exposed your charade of apologetics for what it is: irrational.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
No, I haven't exposed that at all. You have exposed your own weak points, namely that you are trying to assert that your own behaviour is purely 'rational', when rationality only accounts for a part of human behaviour. I have explained this to you, but you don't need to admit it to me. You know yourself that rationality does not account for all of your behaviour, as other higher processes and also basic instincts are equally strong driving forces in life.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
you are right. i never said my behavior was purely rational. i just do the best i can.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
Furthermore, 'rationality' cannot explain some of the things you have mentioned which took place, such as healings and raising from the dead; both of which are also practiced today by Christians.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
yeah, i hear about people being raised from the dead all the time, conveniently they always happen in far away lands away from cameras. besides there is nothing irrational about someone being raised from the dead by an all powerful being. one problem, no proof that one exist.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
There is camera documentation of at least one raising from the dead and you will find it on youtube.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
cool, should i just type raising from the dead?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
In youtube type in "Raised from the Dead part 1"
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Even if there is no borrowing in the Gospels and they are completely original does not make them any more rational. Jesus forgives sins throughout the Nt without a blood sacrifice. Then Paul informs us that a blood sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
I'm glad that you're reading the NT. It does take some reading and study to understand it. Just to clarify what you are asking: Jesus died 'as a blood sacrifice' for sin. Paul confirms that in the Old Testament, blood sacrifices were required for payment for sin. Paul is actually saying that men should look to Jesus as the sacrifice for their sin, so that they can have forgiveness from God.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
i'm not reading it. i have read it. what i'm saying is, if Jesus could forgive sins without having to be put to death, why did he have to be put to death in order to be able to do what he was already doing.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
If there is life on other planets, does that mean there are other jesus there???
ABCGhost 4 years ago
These are unanswered but serious questions. I will leave you to explore these.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
they have probably evolved their own superstitions, saviors with different names, who do different things in order to save their people. Maybe Jezuez of the planet Goam, descended upon Mount Boab, and took a big steamy one allowing his prophet Bob to smell it. anyone who believes Bob smelled it is saved. Would make just as much sense.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
remember, there is no logic in faith.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
"No scholar today believes Jesus was a myth"...
did you take a survey?
"Christ is the very center and meaning of history".
There has been lots of important history before and after christ. He's just another religious hero figure like many others before him (krishna, etc.)
zmart4ever 4 years ago
"He's just another religious hero figure like many others before him" - how do you know? Are you sure? It might be worth finding out, before you come to that conclusion. The reasons I believe that he wasnt just another figure, is because I have thought long and hard about it; have studied the scriptures; and have invited Christ into my life. The experience that I had when I did this, is something I will never forget!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Just because archaeology is proofing that some buildings or even cities really existed doesn't proof that characters from the Bible placed within them were real.
How many novels speak of real places but the characters of the story are fictional?
zmart4ever 4 years ago
I have several vidoes refuting this bull shit. No scholar today believes Jesus was a myth. Christ is the very center and meaning of history.
Psalm130 4 years ago
That's a very weak argument, if I may say so. Archaeological discoveries are adding some very solid evidence that was previously lacking, to the Bible accounts. If you can demonstrate that some of the places recorded in the Bible are actually hidden underground you are at least part way there in 'proving' the stories on environmental grounds.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Of course if you as a person, insist on being negative in your approach to considering the possibility that the gospels are true accounts, then you will be the last to realise the validity of them. You must answer to yourself for that. Regarding 'novels', well most novels state on the book somewhere that it is a novel and not a true story. The gospels do not state anywhere that they are novels for fictional reading or entertainment.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
nor do they have the common decency to give the authors name. so much for integrity.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
'Common decency' has little to do with it. It presupposes a set of conditions similar to our own today, in which the gospels were recorded, copied and handed down. The fact that we have the gospels at all is very significant. Bear in mind that these writings came through periods of horrendous persecution.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
So if you want to be 'rational' about it, you might like to consider the process by which they did arrive to us, rather than your magical idea that they were nice little writings neatly signed by the authors like today.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
i'll say what Hitchens said to Hannity: you give me the impression of someone who has never read any rebuttals to your position.
sunshineralston 4 years ago
hahaha! my magical ideas. your the one who believes in a sky daddy and his zombie son. so let me get this straight, God can raise Jesus from the dead, but can't deliver the gospel down to us with no uncertainty about their date, author or veracity. Why call him God?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
No, sorry, I don't believe in a "sky daddy and his zombie son" - never said I did.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
and again on this issue of common knowledge. look at jesus' own time. not one contemporary mentions him. that is significant when the gospels claim he was going all over the land healing the sick, raising the dead and drawing town sized crowds to listen to him. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. what you have provided isn't even mediocre evidence.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
We have to learn from the records and accounts that we have. Starting with the gospels, then the Letters of Paul, John, Peter and James etc; then the writings of the early church fathers, who quoted extensively from the earliest first century manuscripts - taking all these into account will involve you in a long term study to start with.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
hope i don't die and go to hell before i'm done working toward salvation through intellectual works. see above comment. i don't need to read all those manuscripts.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
i was born an atheist, had religion taught to me, looked at another point of view, now i'm an atheist again. you admit that the christian scheme of salvation is not sound logically, that ends the discussion. why would i go to the trouble of finding out if Jesus lived or not, that fact says it all. if there were a God, do you really think he would be a nut case and ask us to believe things that are silly?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
I do believe that God is real. The reason is not just because of what it says in the Bible, important as that is, or because some other people believe it. The reason I believe is because of some experiences that I have had. My first experience of meeting the Presence of God, was aged 24, and I thought I'd 'give God a chance!', so I asked Jesus to forgive me and come into my life.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
The result was not only instantaneous and dramatic, but life changing! Suddenly I wondered why the world had changed and then I began to realise that it was me that had changed, RADICALLY.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
i have had "god experiences" also. at first i had them as a christian, then as a buddhist. now i have an experience that to is far superior. pure conscious experiences(PCE).
Mindaslight 4 years ago
When I talk about experiences, I'm not just referring to mental or emotional experiences, but rather to seeing God doing things around me. There is nothing superior to Jesus Christ, as He is the Word of God who made not just our consciences but also the universe.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
i use to also interpret everything that happened in my life to the invisible hand of God. now i know better.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
do you?
faithbyloving 4 years ago
do i what? sorry, this is confusing. oh yeah, i think I found the vid you are talking about. watching it now. i mean a video in and of it self would not be proof, you understand that right? you would be skeptical for instance of a footage of the big foot, right. but it is a start for an investigation.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
so you say this particular execution was documented? how about the thousands of others? and if christ execution was documented for the reasons given(we don't know this to be true), why did no one else alive at that time write about it?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
too hard to believe that we have no historians word from that time. god can do anything, why not inspire or at least have many historians in a position to document it all. did he want to leave it vague so that we could have faith. what a tricky god you worship.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
Tacitus was in a uniquely priveleged position as Roman Governor of Asia. He had access to all the Roman records he needed and which were available at the time. To answer your question, we don't know that no one else wrote about it. The reality is that it is a very rare thing to find ANY first century writings AT ALL!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Most writings were done on papyrus which disintegrated after a time. If these writings were not copied before the disintegration they were of course lost. Then there is the reason that someone who is in 'authority' is more likely to have their writings copied than someone who is not. At that time, the people who were in authority, were not really wanting ANY attention to be given to Jesus, so writing about it would not make a lot of sense.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Then you can branch out and study evidences external to the Bible. The amount of ancient manuscripts available for study is well in excess of 5000. I would not call that 'mediocre'! Until you have studied these sources, I wouldn't think you could pass judgement on them at all, can you?
faithbyloving 4 years ago
so you have studied all 5000 manuscripts then mate? how about the koran? how about the tibetan book of the dead? you would find it absurd if i told you that rejecting those books before reading them was lacking in integrity.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
You have to start somewhere! The point I am making to you is that there is so much to learn, that it is premature to dismiss the scripture's authenticity without having really applied serious study to them. As an aside, I am looking into the Koran, since you mentioned it, as it makes claims to be from the Judeo Christian tradition (which is not really correct and it doesn't take long to find out why).
faithbyloving 4 years ago
"The point I am making to you is that there is so much to learn, that it is premature to dismiss the scripture's authenticity without having really applied serious study to them."
so you're going to study all the worlds scriptures before rejecting them, right?
Mindaslight 4 years ago
I am certainly interested to learn about other religions, their beliefs and writings, yes. However, my own experiences of God that I have mentioned are enough for me to know that the gospels have God's authority.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
I don't have sufficient evidence to doubt the gospels or the authenticity of the their history or message. Neither do I doubt Christ or his life and crucifiction. Consider the facts: the earliest writings were on materials like papyrus, which disintegrated after a short while. They therefore had to be copied word for word and the earliest manuscript we have for John's gospel is 29 years after the events they describe - not bad under the circumstances!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
Also, the Bible contains prophecies. These are writings that in some way predict future events. Some of these prophecies are very interesting, such as: the prophecies of the jewish diaspora, which happened after AD 70; the prophesy of Jesus that the monumental Jewish Temple would be destroyed (something unthinkable at the time);
faithbyloving 4 years ago
unless of course it was written after the fact. I mean you don't think we know the gospel dates down to the exact year do you? we have ample evidence that they went through revisions.
See I always look for a simple rational explanation, not some otherworldly magic one.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
I'm not an authority on the gospel dates. However, I would suggest that the gospel date is reasonably accurate and that Pontius Pilate's proven holding of the title Procurator in the years AD 26 - 36, confirms this for us.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
thanks for the suggestion.
sunshineralston 4 years ago
thanks for the suggestion.
sunshineralston 4 years ago
ok, i responded to you on my friends computer and did not realize she was signed into youtube, so the comment below is really me.
"thanks for the suggestion."
Mindaslight 4 years ago
re: Revisions - The oldest Greek manuscript fragment that we have is dated 29 years after its orginal was written, well within the living memory of a man and as it happens to be from John's gospel, we know that he lived to be quite an old man. I think the next one is 130 years after its original, the "Bodmer Papyrus", containing the gospel of John.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
I have always read consensus is that the first gospel was written somewhere around seventy. 29 years after the original? How was that date obtained? And in the end, who cares? Men don't die for three days and come back to life. Animals don't talk, and a man flying up into the sky is just stupid.
sunshineralston 4 years ago
Hi, you're entitled to your view! Take care.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
likewise on the one below this one or on anyone that says sunshineralston.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
Examination of these texts demonstrate that the essential story of the gospel remains intact from the earliest copies of John that we have. The 'revisions' that you speak of neither disprove the existence of Christ nor the gospel account of Christ's life and crucifiction.
faithbyloving 4 years ago
So you think that the Old Testament prophecies of the Jewish diaspora and the return of the Jews to Israel were written after they happened? That would make some parts of the Old Testament written in the latter half of the 20 Century! Do you see the irrational argument of this!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
go to google. search: prophecy site:infidel dot org.
sunshineralston 4 years ago
i was speaking specifically of the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple in 70.
do the search i suggested.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
Thanks, that's an interesting site. I will have a good look at it, but there's so much text, it will take me weeks to read through it all! It is fascinating that someone has gone to so much trouble to build that site to try and argue against Christianity! It's quite a compliment that people take it so seriously - and yes, they should!
faithbyloving 4 years ago
It is fascinating that people care so much about what is true that they would go to all that trouble to create a site that gives people the tools to set themselves free of superstition. ain't life grand.
Mindaslight 4 years ago
I will learn quite a lot from that site, mainly about the arguments put forward to support an Atheist standpoint. It will aid me in a