0

Well I think it was very well written.. perhaps the author was a little biased though lol.. The essay does provide evidence that the new testament may have existed, but It still has not been 100% verified..

.. and the new testament does not actually prove anything, jesus may have existed.. but who's to say that he wasn't some crazy schizophrenic or something? None of his miracles have been proven, and there is not enough evidence to truly know anything about him.

0


.. and the new testament does not actually prove anything, jesus may have existed.. but who's to say that he wasn't some crazy schizophrenic or something? None of his miracles have been proven, and there is not enough evidence to truly know anything about him.

Jesus did exist. If He had not existed, then that would mean His crucifixion didn't exist, Pontius Pilate and King Herod didn't exist, and His disciples didn't exist. His disciples, the ones that knew Him the most were the ones that wrote the Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And if you will read them, they all share the same messages... with quotes from Jesus. They wrote about His character.. which clearly reveals that Jesus was a meek and mild man, He was not crazy or schizophrenic... Another thing, why in the world would the people follow Him if they thought He was "schizophrenic?" Could it be that they followed Him because of His Miracles? I think so.

0

Even if jesus existed, there are many things that refute the existence of god, and therefore jesus. How can god be omnipotent (Know everything) and free will exist at the same time? How was god created? obviously, through science and logic.. everything came from something. And how could god live infinitely? We have never discovered anything that has lived forever. And what about heaven and hell? How can people exist there forever? What exactly would you do all the time? Infinity is not a true number.. Everything that has a beginning, ultimately has an end.. Also, no one has actually found proof of a soul. Why would humans have souls, and not other animals? Why do humans get an afterlife, but no other living organism does?

Humans created their own God. Humans do not like the idea that there is no God and we are alone on this planet. Humans would truly rather believe in a lie than know the terrible truth. Think about it. Society could not and would not exist without a supreme-being that would control the people and eternally punish those that are bad. People behave, because they fear death and eternal hell. That is what keeps society inline today. Scientifically, it is not possible for a supreme being to exist...
There is much more that I could say, but all of us have obviously treaded way off topic.

0

Even if jesus existed, there are many things that refute the existence of god, and therefore jesus. How can god be omnipotent (Know everything) and free will exist at the same time? How was god created? obviously, through science and logic.. everything came from something. And how could god live infinitely? We have never discovered anything that has lived forever. And what about heaven and hell? How can people exist there forever? What exactly would you do all the time? Infinity is not a true number.. Everything that has a beginning, ultimately has an end.. Also, no one has actually found proof of a soul. Why would humans have souls, and not other animals? Why do humans get an afterlife, but no other living organism does?

Humans created their own God. Humans do not like the idea that there is no God and we are alone on this planet. Humans would truly rather believe in a lie than know the terrible truth. Think about it. Society could not and would not exist without a supreme-being that would control the people and eternally punish those that are bad. People behave, because they fear death and eternal hell. That is what keeps society inline today. Scientifically, it is not possible for a supreme being to exist...
There is much more that I could say, but all of us have obviously treaded way off topic.

First off, of course you cannot prove the existence of God... that is impossible. You are correct... but that is where faith steps in.

2. I believe that humans receive an "afterlife" because we are the only organisms that have the ability to choose. We were given free-will from God. But again, you must have faith for this... it cannot be proven.

3. I don't think I would follow something if I believed it was a lie.

4. God is not "a supreme-being that eternally punishes people who are bad." He gives us the decision to choose. It is our choice to serve Him or not. He doesn't want to pressure His own creation to love Him. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Hell was created for Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that fell with him. It was not intended for humans.

0

How was god created? obviously, through science and logic.. everything came from something. And how could god live infinitely? We have never discovered anything that has lived forever. And what about heaven and hell? How can people exist there forever? What exactly would you do all the time? Infinity is not a true number.. Everything that has a beginning, ultimately has an end..

Well, I don't think that scientists can explain the universe even with the big bang theory or evolution. The big bang theory teaches us that all the matter in the universe was packed into an extremely small volume. But I mean, what was before that? How in the world did something come out of nothing? That nothing-ness must have existed, too.

Infinity is possible. It's just beyond our mental capacity to comprehend it.

0

2. I believe that humans receive an "afterlife" because we are the only organisms that have the ability to choose. We were given free-will from God. But again, you must have faith for this... it cannot be proven.

3. I don't think I would follow something if I believed it was a lie.

4. God is not "a supreme-being that eternally punishes people who are bad." He gives us the decision to choose. It is our choice to serve Him or not. He doesn't want to pressure His own creation to love Him. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Hell was created for Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that fell with him. It was not intended for humans.

But, don't all animals posess free will?

Of course you wouldn't follow something if you believed it was a lie.. no one would.

Obviously this discussion is getting nowhere.. It is an age old debate, and I doubt if it will ever be resolved..:eek:

0

But, don't all animals posess free will?

Of course you wouldn't follow something if you believed it was a lie.. no one would.

Obviously this discussion is getting nowhere.. It is an age old debate, and I doubt if it will ever be resolved..:eek:

Sure... of course they have free-will. But do they have the ability to worship and give praise to an Almighty God? There's the difference.

I think you're right, this discussion will probably never be resolved. People have many different opinions and views. I just stand up for mine, that's all.

0

Well, I don't think that scientists can explain the universe even with the big bang theory or evolution. The big bang theory teaches us that all the matter in the universe was packed into an extremely small volume. But I mean, what was before that? How in the world did something come out of nothing? That nothing-ness must have existed, too.

Infinity is possible. It's just beyond our mental capacity to comprehend it.

That is the one thing scientists don't know. How exactly did the Universe form, and how were the first single-celled organisms formed?

Even Einstein did not believe infinity was even reachable.. His theory of relativity concludes that as an object approaches the speed of light, the object's mass and energy approach infinity.. which is impossible, and the reason light speed cannot be reached. Science and math can prove that nothing is truly infinite.

0

That is the one thing scientists don't know. How exactly did the Universe form, and how were the first single-celled organisms formed?

I'm not a scientist, but I think that the rule "matter cannot be created or destroyed" conflicts with the theory of "no infinity". If it can't be created, then it must have existed forever. Which is infinity.

And even though Einstein was very smart, he didn't know everything, he was still a real human being. Science does have limits, and you can't explain supernatural things with it. It's just not possible.

0

I'm not a scientist, but I think that the rule "matter cannot be created or destroyed" conflicts with the theory of "no infinity". If it can't be created, then it must have existed forever. Which is infinity.

Well the law of conservation of mass/energy/momentum would, I suppose conflict with "no infinity". All particles from the creation of the universe are still here today... However, today is not the end. I simply point out that when the universe can no longer expand.. everything will theoretically be destroyed. So, although some things may appear to exist infinitely, the end has not yet come.

0

Well the law of conservation of mass/energy/momentum would, I suppose conflict with "no infinity". All particles from the creation of the universe are still here today... However, today is not the end. I simply point out that when the universe can no longer expand.. everything will theoretically be destroyed. So, although some things may appear to exist infinitely, the end has not yet come.

Are you saying energy was created if\when the Big Bang occurred (if it did occur), and that these particles will be destroyed upon the "shrinking" of the universe? Energy is immortal (cannot create or destroy) hence, it has always been from the moment God created the energy and shall exist until he allows\deems it to. God exists infinitely and immortally. Even if the Big Bang is true (which I actually tend to believe via the Christian God's plans) it (Big Bang) did not create the energy-- it was the energy coming forth and cooling
within nanoseconds.

I have much to say about all of this; I wrote a long post late last night and then my wireless crashed and I lost the post. :sad: I am a Protestant and I hold closely to God's word as well as I can although I shall always be a sinner. I also believe in empirical data derived from science. I believe in the Gospel, miracles, and promise of Salvation (immortality) that we as Christians have accepted from God. My views of science does not divide my faith but in fact strengthens it exponentially. I do not look to Pastor or Priest, Rome, or Pharisee to set the hierarchical laws for me and decide which science is or is not acceptable.

I believe Evolution is a highly-likely probabability although not yet proven. I do believe that DNA shows mathematical proof of Intelligent Design. If God would do this, why could he not allow evolution and the creation of the Universe via the Big Bang? The pieces fit logically and quite nicely in my view. Why are scientists so afraid and ignorant of faith and why do so many religious folks fear and remain ignorant of science? Both form a perfect unity.

God designed physics which bind our elements which are proven to compose our very bodies. Everything on Earth is composed of the very same atomic material: humans, apes, trees, rocks, water, plants, clouds, etc-- each example is simply organized differently.

And one more thought: an English genetics lab last year determined and proved that Homo Sapiens are more closely related to Canines than Primates so everybody can forget about monkeys and go study your possible ancestor, the dog. ;)

Regards,
Matty

0

hmm.. I once thought the same way. However, I have never heard that humans are more closely related to the canines.. It is much more logical that we are more related to the primate.. our DNA is 98% similar, and I can not imagine any closer than that. I advise you to research this further b/c I am quite sure that you are wrong.

0

Mythraism doesn't exist today does it? Of course not...

So? Means nothing. It existed. Its belief system closely mirrored Christianity. And predated it by 500 years. This is a fact. This does not mean Christianity did not develop separately, but Mithraism could have been used as a basis. I'm not saying it did, just saying it could have.

But tell me why has Christianity made such an impact in the society? Why is it the biggest religion in the world?
Jesus Christ did not "simply borrow bits and pieces from other religions." What other religion had a man lay down His life for His friends. The ultimate sacrifice? Jesus did the one thing that no religion can match. That's what seperates the Power and the Divinity in my faith from a simple belief.

Impact: strong belief system, strong following. Does not necessarily mean it's the best. Just means 33% of the worlds population believes it is.
Biggest: because more people believe in its teachings that the others. That by itself doesn't mean it's true. After all, the entire world at one time believed the world was flat. Didn't make it true. Eventually, scientifically, the truth was unveiled.
Christianity is the entirety of the Jesus' teachs, life, and followers that continued well after his death. Most of this He has no direct input into. He was dead. It was his followers after the fact that organized the teachings and the stories into the form we now call Christianity -- and this happened centuries later. Jesus is the beacon that Christianity follows. Jesus did not design Christianity. It was designed around him -- after the fact.

1. They stood up for something they believed in. They were persecuted for the sake of their King. But they would not have done something so "radical" if Jesus had not rose from the dead. They had hope and they carried that until their death.

Who says? Many movements are started by leaders who are killed or executed, and the movement continues without them. The person isn't the magic, the idea is. Martin Luther King comes to mind immediately. His followers are still strong and growing and he didn't rise. He had a worthwhile dream and instilled it in people who still believe in that dream. At a minimum, Jesus did that, and his followers carried on. As for "they would not have done something so 'radical'", how do you know? You weren't there. Maybe they would have. After his rise, they had even more incentive...

2. The Bible itself ...

High points: "It is historically accurate. The places are real, the people are real."
For the small portion of places that have been proven to exist and the few people also proven, that's true. But it's far from proven to be 100% accurate. It may in fact be, but that fact is not proven yet.

Rest of the paragraph: Excellent timeline. Thank you, that was extremely interesting. Still, this information does not prove accuracy. It proves they read the books and compiled them into what is known ultimately as "The Bible". Everyone that helped with the compilation lived centuries after the fact. And, of course, just because something is written doesn't make it true.

Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to around 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter wrote the Gospels, letters, and books that became the Bible's New Testament. Which is written in Greek.

"The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

"today the majority [of scholars] agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts."
"Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

"The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Seems authorship is a little vague. Even the scholars aren't sure.

The Bible can be proven relevant.

Relevant to what? To Christianity, absolutely. To anything else, the jury is out.

This is true for most religions. Did Buddah exist? Or Vishnu? Who knows. They live in the followers hearts. That's where their real strength lies.

Wrong.

Wrong? I didn't say he didn't exist. I asked a question that was easily answered affirmatively. Yes, Siddhartha is Buddha. I'll admit I had forgotten they were the same person. I misremembered that Sid was a Buddhist prophet. Silly me! :)

Vishnu is one of the main gods in Hinduism. It isn't a human.

So? Neither is God.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all came way after the time of jesus. Their gospels were written long after jesus had died, and therefore, were not completely accurate.

See my links above. It seems not that long after. I too thought they were written quite a while after. But it seems, not so. Although the first proven records seem to date from around 400AD and after.

Jesus did exist. If He had not existed, then that would mean His crucifixion didn't exist, Pontius Pilate and King Herod didn't exist, and His disciples didn't exist.

What?!?!? Jesus is the reason Pilate and Herod existed? Absolutely illogical, my dear. That's like saying that oxygen exists simply because we breath it. It's proven that they both existed. They are in historical records. Facts prove you wrong here. Whether or not Jesus existed has absolutely no bearing on whether Pilate or Herod existed.


Christina, you need to look at the logic of your arguments. The fact that you believe does not make your beliefs facts. You believe because it makes sense to you. But the there are few facts to support the beliefs. This is why religion is a belief system. Don't make illogical arguments to attempt to prove points. You cannot use The Bible to prove points, either. That is a circular argument. The points you wish to use from the Bible must be substantiated by outside sources to be facts. And there are many sources that substantiate many biblical references. That still does not prove the Bible is 100% true.

Believe me, I'm not trying to bash your beliefs. Just your arguments that attempt to prove the beliefs are facts. They aren't.

Also, your beliefs are not invalid. Just be careful offering them as absolute truths.

0

WaltP - you need to look at the way you judge my comments. My posts are opinions about the way I look at everything. That does not mean you have to discourage everything I say. I believe them as truths and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. I'm sure the other 2.1 billion Christians in this world would agree with me.

0

What?!?!? Jesus is the reason Pilate and Herod existed? Absolutely illogical, my dear. That's like saying that oxygen exists simply because we breath it. It's proven that they both existed. They are in historical records. Facts prove you wrong here. Whether or not Jesus existed has

She was not saying Pilate and Herod did not exist -- of course they did. What she was saying was that Jueus existed just as much as Pilate and Herod did -- there are written records that all three existed. And we can take that a step further -- if anyone disputes the existance of Jesus then they must also disbelieve the existance of all dead people. Afterall, if you can't see them then they did not exist :mrgreen:

0

if anyone disputes the existance of Jesus then they must also disbelieve the existance of all dead people. Afterall, if you can't see them then they did not exist

"I see dead people." :)

(Sixth Sense)

0

What if they really did find the remains of jesus? What would christianity do then?

The fact is that Christianity's hope is found in the King's Resurrection. There is faith in our hearts. They will never find the remains of Jesus because He is not dead, He is alive. That is our foundation.
Why do you think Christianity is the largest religion in the world? Maybe because it is the only message that tells the world of a man who died for our iniquities and transgressions even though He was sinless and without blame? But three days later, rises again?

(I hope no one tries to correct this post, I am just telling you the faith of Christianity).

0

First off, I want to state I am not correcting.

With that said, self-sacrifice for the betterment of others is not a unique image.

Take, for instance, Buddha, who achieved Nirvana, but withheld himself from entering, so that he could help others reach it.

0

First off, I want to state I am not correcting.

With that said, self-sacrifice for the betterment of others is not a unique image.

Take, for instance, Buddha, who achieved Nirvana, but withheld himself from entering, so that he could help others reach it.

Buddha may have withheld himself from Nirvana, but is that really big enough to compare with the crucifixion of Jesus? He laid His life down for His friends.... who else would do such a thing???

0

Well I think it was very well written.. perhaps the author was a little biased though lol.. The essay does provide evidence that the new testament may have existed, but It still has not been 100% verified..

.. and the new testament does not actually prove anything, jesus may have existed.. but who's to say that he wasn't some crazy schizophrenic or something? None of his miracles have been proven, and there is not enough evidence to truly know anything about him.

Just because I favor the New Testament doesn't make my research methods biased ... It may seem that way because the paper was focusing on the New Testament, but I assure you my research and documentation are accurate.

0


With that said, self-sacrifice for the betterment of others is not a unique image.

No one like Jesus has ever walked the Earth-- he was God as man. Buddha was not. Jesus' acts were of a divine nature, not self-realized via meditation like Buddha's. Jesus' miracles were not magic but actually the Holy Spirit working through this embodiement of the Lord. Jesus walked and lived amongst the poor, sick, and abandoned, taught them, healed them, fed them, and ultimately, to this very moment, saved them\us from ourselves and the dark predator, Satan.

Buddha is interesting and much of Eastern thought mirrors Christian teachings of humility and compassion but it is not comparable beyond the window-dressings of possible outward similarities prescribed by the Leftist intellectual agnostic\atheists who hope to deride the salvation of the Christian Messiah.

Buddha was not divine and shall forever remain an exotic footnote of a religion without merit or true influence that encourages idol worship and pagan-like activities.

Matty

0

Jesus did not design Christianity. It was designed around him -- after the fact.

yeah, ok.. that made since... :rolleyes:

Rest of the paragraph: Excellent timeline. Thank you, that was extremely interesting. Still, this information does not prove accuracy. It proves they read the books and compiled them into what is known ultimately as "The Bible". Everyone that helped with the compilation lived centuries after the fact. And, of course, just because something is written doesn't make it true.

The events in the Bible are more historically accurate most historical writings..

The manuscript authority of the New Testament is over twenty thousand, compared to the second place Iliad with roughly six-hundred and fifty. Furthermore, within the text of the Iliad manuscripts are over seven hundred lines in question or contradiction, which is close to five percent. Remarkably, in the New Testament manuscripts, out of all twenty thousand, only forty lines are in question. This is an astounding one half percent! At the time of the writings of the New Testament, people were still alive who witnessed the life of Jesus and his crucifixion. The writings of Christ were circulating during the time of his death, and could certainly be confirmed or denied credibility. When writing, the apostles would even turn the tables not only saying, “We saw this…” or “We heard that…” but also, “You heard about these things… You saw them.” If any false statements or inaccuracies existed, they would have surely been brought into light. The men writing the accounts of Jesus were loyal followers. Therefore, inaccuracies do not exist in the form of the writer. Friendly eyewitnesses were not the only ones reading what the apostles had written. The disciples could not afford to be inaccurate, especially when claiming that not only themselves but everyone around them knew what had happened. Also, unconvinced groups scream, “What about the textual contradiction?” Actually, historians find minor differences in text and records as more reliable sources. If someone was lying, surely the group of writers would make sure to have their stories point for point to the word. These minor differences in text are not contradictions, but instead offer different perspectives of events. Through the application of internal evidence test, The New Testament text has now been established as credible

"The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

"today the majority [of scholars] agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts."
"Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

"The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Seems authorship is a little vague. Even the scholars aren't sure.

So? If anything this would prove accuracy, otherwise the writings would have never made it public, as Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and whoever else would have made it known that the writings were false.

See my links above. It seems not that long after. I too thought they were written quite a while after. But it seems, not so. Although the first proven records seem to date from around 400AD and after.

Nope. The writings of the New Testament were completed within 70 years of Jesus's birth (so 70AD).

What?!?!? Jesus is the reason Pilate and Herod existed? Absolutely illogical, my dear. That's like saying that oxygen exists simply because we breath it. It's proven that they both existed. They are in historical records. Facts prove you wrong here. Whether or not Jesus existed has absolutely no bearing on whether Pilate or Herod existed.

You really think we would say Jesus is the reason for Pilate and Herod existing?? lol

You're right, both Pilate and Herod lives have been proven; and surely you wouldn't argue with the life of Tacitus? Surely not!

Exerpt from Tacitus's writing on Nero's persecution of Christians:

“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, . .”

Christ's life = proven.

Christina, you need to look at the logic of your arguments. The fact that you believe does not make your beliefs facts. You believe because it makes sense to you.... Don't make illogical arguments to attempt to prove points. ...

Believe me, I'm not trying to bash your beliefs. Just your arguments that attempt to prove the beliefs are facts. They aren't.

you too. ;)

0

what? No one had anything to say about my month-old article? What if they really did find the remains of jesus? What would christianity do then?

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html?iid=chix-digg

The fact of the matter is, Jesus was burries in a borrowed tomb... they very well may have found the tomb of Jesus, but there were a number of bodies inside the same tomb. Sometimes, people try to prove points without doing a little research first... :rolleyes:

0

Buddha is interesting and much of Eastern thought mirrors Christian teachings of humility and compassion but it is not comparable beyond the window-dressings of possible outward similarities prescribed by the Leftist intellectual agnostic\atheists who hope to deride the salvation of the Christian Messiah.

Buddha was not divine and shall forever remain an exotic footnote of a religion without merit or true influence that encourages idol worship and pagan-like activities.

Matty

Matty

First, I shall ask: who came first, Buddha, or Jesus?

From the answer to that, we find that Christianity mirrors Eastern thought, not the other way around.

And no, I wouldn't consider myself "a Leftist intellectual agnostic/athiest who hope to deride the salvation of the Christian Messiah." Rather, I'm simply opening another outlook.

Buddha was not divine

According to who? You? Christianity? Simply because you don't believe in the idea does not mean it isn't true. I myself have no affiliation to Buddhism of any kind, but I'm just trying to present another outlook on it all.

religion without merit or true influence that encourages idol worship and pagan-like activities.

Again, ignorance.

1

Guys, I give up.

We all know that nobody's stance on anything will change a smudgeon, as shown by everybody's very last post. Everyone is using the same old ignorances, criticizing others who don't agree with their own beliefs, and simply bashing other religions needlessly.

WHY? Why does it matter what someone else believes? Why do we need to so vehemeously defend our own beliefs? Why does it matter what somebody else thinks of you?

This argument is going in circles, with nobody changing.

It was stupid of me to even partake in any of this, I'm sorry.

Votes + Comments
hah.. I agree. But it's fun to debate
0


According to who? You? Christianity? Simply because you don't believe in the idea does not mean it isn't true. I myself have no affiliation to Buddhism of any kind, but I'm just trying to present another outlook on it all.

Again, ignorance.

Yes, according to myself and Christianity; although I have a general love for all individuals on this planet even if I disagree with their view, religious beliefs, etc, this does not mean I have to support their view and render myself inert to what I consider just another branch of Paganism (which in my religious beliefs is not to be supported, encouraged, or to be taken lightly.) I do believe Buddhism is a sidenote of a religion no matter the number of followers-- that means nothing to me.

As to ignorance: I have read and studied Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism actively and out of my own interest since I was 15-- I am 36 years-old now, so, I imagine I am better-versed and actually non-ignorant to these religions in actuality; it is my studies of these world religions that have allowed me to fully embrace Christianity by choice. And, please note, Stein, I have come to Jesus only two-years ago, hence, I was not raised and indoctrinated to follow something by rote. I am Jewish by birth.

I feel no need what-so-ever to stand by and grovel to these religions in a tone of global, political-correctness. As an American I believe in the right to religious freedom, so I fully can accept and even protect these religion's right to exist within the States but I in no way will endorse their beliefs, distortions of history, and what we as Christians believe to be the true ignorance. These groups I speak of are our brothers and sisters, truly as we are all created by the same God, but beyond that I do not see much that we could possibly have in common. They have their opportunity to "be saved" should they choose and I personally welcome them really with open arms. I would also help, feed, and aid these same people, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans with no strings attached-- this is what Jesus left with us and it is really the most important thing. No man, woman, or child on this planet should suffer war, famine, or racism. As Christians, we are branded to this work, an oath, a covenant.

Matty

0

WaltP - you need to look at the way you judge my comments. My posts are opinions about the way I look at everything. That does not mean you have to discourage everything I say. I believe them as truths and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. I'm sure the other 2.1 billion Christians in this world would agree with me.

Believe me, I'm not trying to discourage everything you say. I'm saying if you state an opinion, make it logical. And realize opinions are not truths, they are opinions. Believing that the opinion as a truth is fine, and must be done in order to be a believer. And knowing that others do not hold them as truths make these discussion interesting, and sometimes heated. I tried hard not to do the heated version.

All I'm saying is be careful how you word your beliefs. Bullet-proof them as much as possible. I could have taken the other side and been much stronger, and the result would have been very different. I was simply trying to make you think about your side and help you rethink the way you explain your beliefs -- in essence to strengthen your ability to discuss your beliefs so as not to let people poke holes in your side.

If you reread my comments, you will note I did not say you were wrong, I generally was saying that the points you were trying to make weren't compelling, as stated. Making the points in a different way can strengthen your position. Just remember, there will always be those that don't believe and nothing you say matters...

She was not saying Pilate and Herod did not exist -- of course they did. What she was saying was that Jueus existed just as much as Pilate and Herod did...

If that's what she was saying, sorry. That's not what she wrote, though.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.