I don't believe in any religion, I see it as a a convenient way to control the masses and I'm independent and strong enough not to need controlled. I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man who did many great things, but I don't believe he was the son of God, that he ever claimed to be the son of God or that it was claimed during his lifetime. .
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.
B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.
C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!
Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.
B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.
C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!
Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.
What is the evidence, beyond biblical texts (none of which were written by anyone who actually met Jesus), that Jesus made those claims?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Been posting in this board for a year now and I never had a look to a Moving Train. I think I should do it more often. You guys have more civilized debates than the guys from The Porch (quite often resort to childish name calling).
That's a pretty good and accurate source. Thanks for adding. Interesting to note that most of the sources are dated to at least 100 years after jesus's time. Even Josephus wasn't around at the time of jesus's life, so to an extent his knowledge is second hand. As is Paul's. So at best, we can all agree that the earliest extra-new testament reference would be Josephus? Anyone disagree>?
Your source on the Talmud is interesting. Ive read elsewhere that in Jewish historical records there is a reference to a rabbi whose literal name was Yehuda. It is thought the Yehuda of the jewish scripts may have been Jesus. Yes kids, its true, his real name was not Jesus. Jesus would have been modified into a greco-roman name and then anglicizied. IMHO
Your source on the Talmud is interesting. Ive read elsewhere that in Jewish historical records there is a reference to a rabbi whose literal name was Yehuda. It is thought the Yehuda of the jewish scripts may have been Jesus. Yes kids, its true, his real name was not Jesus. Jesus would have been modified into a greco-roman name and then anglicizied. IMHO
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.
B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.
C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!
Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.
Ms. Corn - This is meant at as a discussion seeking truth, not as an attack on your faith. In seeking to find truth, have you ever tried looking anywhere outside of the NT for it? In response...
A) The Jews did it? Unlikely. As a point of reference you need to understand what was going on in ancient Judea to understand the messianic history. Judea was always a relatively weak power surrounded by great empires. At the time of Jesus, Judea was occuppied by yet another brutal empire. Not having the military might to confront Rome, Jews at that time were heavily reliant on faith in god and a messiah to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. The messiah was for some an integral part of Judaism. For some it was not. It was debated and there were different views on messiah even then. And Jesus was not the only one at that time claiming to be the messiah. He was one of many.
You speak of what Jesus said and did, yet you cant deny the fact that neither he nor any of his immediate disciples left any written record. The NT was compiled at least in part a full 70 years later. At that time, that was two lifetimes. And it was modified for many reasons over centuries.
C) Let's look at motive...Why would the latter disciples have had reason to exagerate what jesus did in his lifetime. For one, perhaps they just didnt know. The initial history would have to have been oral unless there were writings we dont know about. And to me, oral history that is 2 millineum old doesn't hold water for me.
Remember, Jesus's disciples largely fled and for those that stayed to try to bring the message to the holy land, they were shunned. So the message never took hold and they decided to move on to Asia minor and Greece where Christianity first took hold. The Pagans....
If indeed the disciples believe "the jews" killed Jesus, and then "the jews" would not buy their interpretation of Jesus, it stands to reason they may have carried a bit of a grudge and decided to make up their own message based on their latter interpretation of Jesus.
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.
B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.
C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!
Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.
Your options A and B seem very likely to me. Flawed genious...in fact I'd argue it's the flaws that make the genious.
On the topic of neither Jesus nor his disciples leaving any written record, it might be useful to consider the 'Q' text; which is the name given to the references Matthew and Luke seem to have drawn upon in the writing of their gospels.
'Q' was a collection of writings on Jesus's teachings / actions that would have been in circulation in the time after Jesus' ministry. These seem to have mostly comprised of Jesus's teachings, written down for communal use.
This was a common practice at the time, as it was an effective way of spreading the teachings of a particularly good rabbi.
This, combined with the oral passage of information is part of the reason the gospels (though, leaving them aside for now) and the historical writings are considered accurate records. It is not as if there was a thirty year gap until someone decided to write a book; rather the historical writings are amalgamations and records of the more temporary information available.
Also bear in mind that for the official Roman historian, the post that Josephus filled, messing up meant the chop (in the more literal sense). No trade unions in Rome.
Ive heard of it. Do you have any references for it?
Ms. Corn - This is meant at as a discussion seeking truth, not as an attack on your faith. In seeking to find truth, have you ever tried looking anywhere outside of the NT for it? In response...
A) The Jews did it? Unlikely. As a point of reference you need to understand what was going on in ancient Judea to understand the messianic history. Judea was always a relatively weak power surrounded by great empires. At the time of Jesus, Judea was occuppied by yet another brutal empire. Not having the military might to confront Rome, Jews at that time were heavily reliant on faith in god and a messiah to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. The messiah was for some an integral part of Judaism. For some it was not. It was debated and there were different views on messiah even then. And Jesus was not the only one at that time claiming to be the messiah. He was one of many.
You speak of what Jesus said and did, yet you cant deny the fact that neither he nor any of his immediate disciples left any written record. The NT was compiled at least in part a full 70 years later. At that time, that was two lifetimes. And it was modified for many reasons over centuries.
C) Let's look at motive...Why would the latter disciples have had reason to exagerate what jesus did in his lifetime. For one, perhaps they just didnt know. The initial history would have to have been oral unless there were writings we dont know about. And to me, oral history that is 2 millineum old doesn't hold water for me.
Remember, Jesus's disciples largely fled and for those that stayed to try to bring the message to the holy land, they were shunned. So the message never took hold and they decided to move on to Asia minor and Greece where Christianity first took hold. The Pagans....
If indeed the disciples believe "the jews" killed Jesus, and then "the jews" would not buy their interpretation of Jesus, it stands to reason they may have carried a bit of a grudge and decided to make up their own message based on their latter interpretation of Jesus.
Is this not as possible as your interpretation?
i can, and already have effectively denied a 70 year gap. i'll not rehash details here as you can read back if you need to, but a reasonable estimate is 25 to 30 years, maximum, after the death of Christ! Thats well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses both friendly and hostile. Not only eyewitnesses to confirm the stories, but also those who could easily refute them. We wouldn't be having this discussion nearly 2000 years later. In fact, not only do hostile witness not deny the stories but they confirm them! As was aluded to earlier, there is a portion of the Jewish Talmud which acknowledges Jesus and refers to him as a blasphemer and a sorcerer. This not only confirms Jesus existence, but also confirms his claims to divinity and acknowledges that regardless of one's perspective (miaracles vs. sorcery) he was about and doing some crazy stuff. This is not only extra-NT, one might say it is anti-NT, yet it, in its own way, corroborates the stories in the NT.
Now, as far as motive you raise an interesting question. i actually would ask why the original twelve would go on to suffer not only imprisonment, but horrific torture and grisly execution for something they had not witnessed? We're talking beheadings and upsidedown crucifixions (amongst others). Of the original twelve, one died naturally. The others suffered brutal, torturous demise due to their preachings. Talk about motivation. Certainly not a message they "made up".
BTW, its MR. Cornnifer
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i can, and already have effectively denied a 70 year gap. i'll not rehash details here as you can read back if you need to, but a reasonable estimate is 25 to 30 years, maximum, after the death of Christ! Thats well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses both friendly and hostile. Not only eyewitnesses to confirm the stories, but also those who could easily refute them. We wouldn't be having this discussion nearly 2000 years later. In fact, not only do hostile witness not deny the stories but they confirm them! As was aluded to earlier, there is a portion of the Jewish Talmud which acknowledges Jesus and refers to him as a blasphemer and a sorcerer. This not only confirms Jesus existence, but also confirms his claims to divinity and acknowledges that regardless of one's perspective (miaracles vs. sorcery) he was about and doing some crazy stuff. This is not only extra-NT, one might say it is anti-NT, yet it, in its own way, corroborates the stories in the NT.
Now, as far as motive you raise an interesting question. i actually would ask why the original twelve would go on to suffer not only imprisonment, but horrific torture and grisly execution for something they had not witnessed? We're talking beheadings and upsidedown crucifixions (amongst others). Of the original twelve, one died naturally. The others suffered brutal, torturous demise due to their preachings. Talk about motivation. Certainly not a message they "made up".
BTW, its MR. Cornnifer
My bad....Now im all fucked up. I thought you were like a Jennifer from a corn state. Now I dont know what the hell to think. Jesus, am I confused!
Debating whether or not Jesus ever really existed is an engaging subject but ultimately pretty fruitless. There is no irrefrutable evidence to 'prove' he did and yet enough secondary sources to assume that he probably did - hence the debate is possible.
The point is whether or not you believe he was the son of God and had 'supernatural' powers (which of course he didn't). But of course if you believe that it is a belief based on belief not on evidence - and hence a circular argument that is impenetrable to argument and reason.
The point is whether or not you believe he was the son of God and had 'supernatural' powers (which of course he didn't). .
Oh, of course. :rolleyes:
And you base this on what? You know, i don't care what people believe. i really don't. i would, and do have respect for people who say "i just don't believe it". its folks like you that freakin kill me. People who insist they have some kind of insight, but bring absolutely nothing to the table save for "Christians are stupid, brainwashed, ignorant and completely unreasonable".
Whatever, dude. Good luck with that.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
And you base this on what? You know, i don't care what people believe. i really don't. i would, and do have respect for people who say "i just don't believe it". its folks like you that freakin kill me. People who insist they have some kind of insight, but bring absolutely nothing to the table save for "Christians are stupid, brainwashed, ignorant and completely unreasonable".
Whatever, dude. Good luck with that.
Calm down. I actually havn't claimed to have any insight have I. In fact totally the opposite. I am Jack's complete lack of insight. I assert Christ wasn't supernatural because there is no convincing evidence to suggest he was. That's the point.
You are the one who presumably believes that 2,000 years ago a man was born of a virgin, fathered by God (who is also himself), had supernatural powers and rose from the dead. I have no insight on this other than to say that since there is no evidence (except for a couple of 2,000 year old secondary sources - there's better evidence than that for UFO's and the Mexican goatsucker) I don't believe in the reality of this rather unlikely tale.
In short I base my conclusion that Jesus wasn't supernatural on the harsh reality that people are'nt supernatural - and there's no genuine evidence to suggest otherwise in Jesus' case. This thread exists because there is debate over whether or not the guy even ever existed - forgetting about the jump form existence to X Men like abilities. If you do believe - ie you are the one asserting a positive out of nothing - and if you want others to share in and understand that belief - then surely it is up to you to provide the insight.
and if you want others to share in and understand that belief - then surely it is up to you to provide the insight.
Once again, i don't care if you share and understand my belief or not, however, i have provided insight anyway.
You're right though. People are not supernatural. You see, however, this is no argument considering we are not talking about a person, but God! The bottomline is you don't believe in God. Fine. Say that. i'll respect it. But as it stands, you talk alot of shit about people of faith, sling insults, and bring absolutely nothing to the table. Yours is not a respectable position.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Once again, i don't care if you share and understand my belief or not, however, i have provided insight anyway.
You're right though. People are not supernatural. You see, however, this is no argument considering we are not talking about a person, but God! The bottomline is you don't believe in God. Fine. Say that. i'll respect it. But as it stands, you talk alot of shit about people of faith, sling insults, and bring absolutely nothing to the table. Yours is not a respectable position.
We obviously have a different appreciation of what constitues slinging insults then - since I have not accused you of 'talking shit' or maintaining an unrespectable position. But thats OK - you carry on retorting with emotional outbursts instead of reasoned argument until you've blown yourself out.
If I have offended you then I do genuinely apologise. But you seem to be a bit overly sensitive since all i've said is Jesus wasn't supernatural and that I cannot leap to the belief that he was because I don't see any decent evidence. As for my lack of belief in God, I would have thought that was self evident. If you don't care about my beliefs fine, but rather than just reply with an outburst of vitriol wouldn't it be more constructive (for both of us) to reply with a counterpoint as to why I should believe in God, and why I should believe Jesus was supernatural in the absence of any compelling evidence?
We obviously have a different appreciation of what constitues slinging insults then - since I have not accused you of 'talking shit' or maintaining an unrespectable position. But thats OK - you carry on retorting with emotional outbursts instead of reasoned argument until you've blown yourself out.
If I have offended you then I do genuinely apologise. But you seem to be a bit overly sensitive since all i've said is Jesus wasn't supernatural and that I cannot leap to the belief that he was because I don't see any decent evidence. As for my lack of belief in God, I would have thought that was self evident. If you don't care about my beliefs fine, but rather than just reply with an outburst of vitriol wouldn't it be more constructive (for both of us) to reply with a counterpoint as to why I should believe in God, and why I should believe Jesus was supernatural in the absence of any compelling evidence?
You offer no point to counter.
i'm not overly sensitive. i'm not even offended. What would constitute decent evidence? Again if you don't believe, fine. Stop implying that those of who do are ignorant, however, when you offer nothing of what you call "reasoned argument".
i'll not continue to go on trading empty words with you. if you have something substantial, reasoned, and respectful to offer, great. If not have a nice day.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You offer no point to counter.
i'm not overly sensitive. i'm not even offended. What would constitute decent evidence? Again if you don't believe, fine. Stop implying that those of who do are ignorant, however, when you offer nothing of what you call "reasoned argument".
i'll not continue to go on trading empty words with you. if you have something substantial, reasoned, and respectful to offer, great. If not have a nice day.
I'm not implying you're ignorant. As I've stated I am the ignorant one who lacks the insight since you are aware of some reason to beleive that 2,000 years ago the son of God (who is also himslef) was born to a virgin, blessed with super powers and rose from the dead. I am completely and utterly ignorant as to why you beleive this in the absence of evidence.
I assert Christ wasn't supernatural because there is no convincing evidence to suggest he was. That's the point.
No one can prove a negative. You may not believe in something that you have not experienced and that makes sense. And yet that remains your belief and not proven.
I'm wondering if you are able to disprove assertions that Jesus was divine, since it's completely valid and doable to disprove an assertion.
You mentioned that your lack of faith in God is self evident. If you don't experience something, it is self evident that you don't yet know whether it exists or not--it is evident that you have not experienced it. That's different than it being evident that it does not exist.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No one can prove a negative. You may not believe in something that you have not experienced and that makes sense. And yet that remains your belief and not proven.
I'm wondering if you are able to disprove assertions that Jesus was divine, since it's completely valid and doable to disprove an assertion.
You mentioned that your lack of faith in God is self evident. If you don't experience something, it is self evident that you don't yet know whether it exists or not--it is evident that you have not experienced it. That's different than it being evident that it does not exist.
There is no proof on either issue. Thats why faith has to be present. Thats all there is.
There is no proof on either issue. Thats why faith has to be present. Thats all there is.
I've had numerous mystical/spiritual experiences so I have experiential understandings that are empirical for me and far beyond faith. They are about KNOWing. At the same time, I don't in any way think or imply that I can prove my experiences to others. And yet, these very experiences provide me with insights that are difficult to argue with.
In these debates, people use lack of experience as "proof". People also try to somehow make a negative stick as proof. Often this is in the same breath that they say this topic is completely about faith and thusly non-factual. I will agree on one thing--these experiences are about a realm beyond the merely physical reality. And it's the physical world where proof is relevent, so often the gap between spiritual and physical remains separated, for the most part only to be bridged by faith. And therefore one-up-manship is not really useful at all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've had numerous mystical/spiritual experiences so I have experiential understandings that are empirical for me and far beyond faith. They are about KNOWing. At the same time, I don't in any way think or imply that I can prove my experiences to others. And yet, these very experiences provide me with insights that are difficult to argue with.
In these debates, people use lack of experience as "proof". People also try to somehow make a negative stick as proof. Often this is in the same breath that they say this topic is completely about faith and thusly non-factual. I will agree on one thing--these experiences are about a realm beyond the merely physical reality. And it's the physical world where proof is relevent, so often the gap between spiritual and physical remains separated, for the most part only to be bridged by faith. And therefore one-up-manship is not really useful at all.
Was really I think about the historical underpinnings of religion, not spirituality in general. At least that was how I read it...
I liked it. I actually have no opinion really on the topic of Jesus. I agree there is nothing to suggest he had any intent to form his own religion. This was something done by his followers after his untimely death. That said, I think religion can serve valuable purposes if channeled correctly. It is also capable of bringing about great evil..
I am prompted to agree with you once more. Religion, as I have interpreted as, is a sort of replacement for great things that we lack in our lives. So instead of aiming for those things that we want for in life, we miss our objective completely and settle for an established set of rules. This to me is religion. I know, this is more philosophical then it is rational. But sometimes we get so caught up with our beliefs that we forget what religion was intended for originally. This is why religion will never work. I don't care what kind. Many christians do the very same thing.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I've had numerous mystical/spiritual experiences so I have experiential understandings that are empirical for me and far beyond faith. They are about KNOWing. At the same time, I don't in any way think or imply that I can prove my experiences to others. And yet, these very experiences provide me with insights that are difficult to argue with.
In these debates, people use lack of experience as "proof". People also try to somehow make a negative stick as proof. Often this is in the same breath that they say this topic is completely about faith and thusly non-factual. I will agree on one thing--these experiences are about a realm beyond the merely physical reality. And it's the physical world where proof is relevent, so often the gap between spiritual and physical remains separated, for the most part only to be bridged by faith. And therefore one-up-manship is not really useful at all.
is this all in reference to the bible, or in some other religion?? cause if it's the bible, I'd like to have a conversation with you.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Comments
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.
B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.
C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!
Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.
Thats just speculation.
Ms. Corn - This is meant at as a discussion seeking truth, not as an attack on your faith. In seeking to find truth, have you ever tried looking anywhere outside of the NT for it? In response...
A) The Jews did it? Unlikely. As a point of reference you need to understand what was going on in ancient Judea to understand the messianic history. Judea was always a relatively weak power surrounded by great empires. At the time of Jesus, Judea was occuppied by yet another brutal empire. Not having the military might to confront Rome, Jews at that time were heavily reliant on faith in god and a messiah to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. The messiah was for some an integral part of Judaism. For some it was not. It was debated and there were different views on messiah even then. And Jesus was not the only one at that time claiming to be the messiah. He was one of many.
C) Let's look at motive...Why would the latter disciples have had reason to exagerate what jesus did in his lifetime. For one, perhaps they just didnt know. The initial history would have to have been oral unless there were writings we dont know about. And to me, oral history that is 2 millineum old doesn't hold water for me.
Remember, Jesus's disciples largely fled and for those that stayed to try to bring the message to the holy land, they were shunned. So the message never took hold and they decided to move on to Asia minor and Greece where Christianity first took hold. The Pagans....
If indeed the disciples believe "the jews" killed Jesus, and then "the jews" would not buy their interpretation of Jesus, it stands to reason they may have carried a bit of a grudge and decided to make up their own message based on their latter interpretation of Jesus.
Is this not as possible as your interpretation?
Your options A and B seem very likely to me. Flawed genious...in fact I'd argue it's the flaws that make the genious.
Isnt it all?
i can, and already have effectively denied a 70 year gap. i'll not rehash details here as you can read back if you need to, but a reasonable estimate is 25 to 30 years, maximum, after the death of Christ! Thats well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses both friendly and hostile. Not only eyewitnesses to confirm the stories, but also those who could easily refute them. We wouldn't be having this discussion nearly 2000 years later. In fact, not only do hostile witness not deny the stories but they confirm them! As was aluded to earlier, there is a portion of the Jewish Talmud which acknowledges Jesus and refers to him as a blasphemer and a sorcerer. This not only confirms Jesus existence, but also confirms his claims to divinity and acknowledges that regardless of one's perspective (miaracles vs. sorcery) he was about and doing some crazy stuff. This is not only extra-NT, one might say it is anti-NT, yet it, in its own way, corroborates the stories in the NT.
Now, as far as motive you raise an interesting question. i actually would ask why the original twelve would go on to suffer not only imprisonment, but horrific torture and grisly execution for something they had not witnessed? We're talking beheadings and upsidedown crucifixions (amongst others). Of the original twelve, one died naturally. The others suffered brutal, torturous demise due to their preachings. Talk about motivation. Certainly not a message they "made up".
BTW, its MR. Cornnifer
The point is whether or not you believe he was the son of God and had 'supernatural' powers (which of course he didn't). But of course if you believe that it is a belief based on belief not on evidence - and hence a circular argument that is impenetrable to argument and reason.
Oh, of course. :rolleyes:
And you base this on what? You know, i don't care what people believe. i really don't. i would, and do have respect for people who say "i just don't believe it". its folks like you that freakin kill me. People who insist they have some kind of insight, but bring absolutely nothing to the table save for "Christians are stupid, brainwashed, ignorant and completely unreasonable".
Whatever, dude. Good luck with that.
Calm down. I actually havn't claimed to have any insight have I. In fact totally the opposite. I am Jack's complete lack of insight. I assert Christ wasn't supernatural because there is no convincing evidence to suggest he was. That's the point.
You are the one who presumably believes that 2,000 years ago a man was born of a virgin, fathered by God (who is also himself), had supernatural powers and rose from the dead. I have no insight on this other than to say that since there is no evidence (except for a couple of 2,000 year old secondary sources - there's better evidence than that for UFO's and the Mexican goatsucker) I don't believe in the reality of this rather unlikely tale.
In short I base my conclusion that Jesus wasn't supernatural on the harsh reality that people are'nt supernatural - and there's no genuine evidence to suggest otherwise in Jesus' case. This thread exists because there is debate over whether or not the guy even ever existed - forgetting about the jump form existence to X Men like abilities. If you do believe - ie you are the one asserting a positive out of nothing - and if you want others to share in and understand that belief - then surely it is up to you to provide the insight.
Once again, i don't care if you share and understand my belief or not, however, i have provided insight anyway.
You're right though. People are not supernatural. You see, however, this is no argument considering we are not talking about a person, but God! The bottomline is you don't believe in God. Fine. Say that. i'll respect it. But as it stands, you talk alot of shit about people of faith, sling insults, and bring absolutely nothing to the table. Yours is not a respectable position.
We obviously have a different appreciation of what constitues slinging insults then - since I have not accused you of 'talking shit' or maintaining an unrespectable position. But thats OK - you carry on retorting with emotional outbursts instead of reasoned argument until you've blown yourself out.
If I have offended you then I do genuinely apologise. But you seem to be a bit overly sensitive since all i've said is Jesus wasn't supernatural and that I cannot leap to the belief that he was because I don't see any decent evidence. As for my lack of belief in God, I would have thought that was self evident. If you don't care about my beliefs fine, but rather than just reply with an outburst of vitriol wouldn't it be more constructive (for both of us) to reply with a counterpoint as to why I should believe in God, and why I should believe Jesus was supernatural in the absence of any compelling evidence?
i'm not overly sensitive. i'm not even offended. What would constitute decent evidence? Again if you don't believe, fine. Stop implying that those of who do are ignorant, however, when you offer nothing of what you call "reasoned argument".
i'll not continue to go on trading empty words with you. if you have something substantial, reasoned, and respectful to offer, great. If not have a nice day.
I'm not implying you're ignorant. As I've stated I am the ignorant one who lacks the insight since you are aware of some reason to beleive that 2,000 years ago the son of God (who is also himslef) was born to a virgin, blessed with super powers and rose from the dead. I am completely and utterly ignorant as to why you beleive this in the absence of evidence.
I'm wondering if you are able to disprove assertions that Jesus was divine, since it's completely valid and doable to disprove an assertion.
You mentioned that your lack of faith in God is self evident. If you don't experience something, it is self evident that you don't yet know whether it exists or not--it is evident that you have not experienced it. That's different than it being evident that it does not exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is no proof on either issue. Thats why faith has to be present. Thats all there is.
In these debates, people use lack of experience as "proof". People also try to somehow make a negative stick as proof. Often this is in the same breath that they say this topic is completely about faith and thusly non-factual. I will agree on one thing--these experiences are about a realm beyond the merely physical reality. And it's the physical world where proof is relevent, so often the gap between spiritual and physical remains separated, for the most part only to be bridged by faith. And therefore one-up-manship is not really useful at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And in all your life, you will probably never be any more wrong on the very same moment that you were ever most right.