An observation about Christianity.

[evilwill]

I'm not saying this is a fact or anything, just something I've noticed over my years. Just be listening prayers, readiny parts of religious texts and encountering many christians, it seems that christianity is a very submissive religion.

On countless occassions I have noticed the way man must supposedly bow down to god and serve his every will and how we are nothing compared to his greatness. It tends to put humans down as if we are petty slaves to this 'almighty being'.

To be honest that really shits me. I know christianity teaches many ideal things such and love and all that, but why is this submit to god or burn in hell so necessary?

I believe we are in control of ourselves and we do not need to be bowing down or serving the will of something that is most likely not there. I guess this is kind of linked to the 'fear of god/hell' stuff.

[playmaker88]

Much in the same way that Humans play God all over the Earth. What animals live, what animals die, what forest gets cut down, what seas get polluted. The species that invented the word 'God' likes nothing more than playing the game.

Roll on the next comet strike or caldera rip and roll on the future masters of this planet. I'm sure that they could do a better job with what they've got. They may even invent a type of God, associate it with nature and respect all aspects of it. :toast:

[Hoodlum]

christians are so pompous because they all think that if your not a christian then you have to be "saved".. and if you choose not to be christian then your are doomed to heLL! o no!!! its rediculous..

[bbbv3.5]

christians are so pompous because they all think that if your not a christian then you have to be "saved".. and if you choose not to be christian then your are doomed to heLL! o no!!! its rediculous..

o SHUT UP!!

Here is an observation if you all do not believe in God and think he is not real. How would you come to armageddon online without god. Basically we all typed in Armageddon in google, yahoo or msn searches. If there was no God there would be no word Armageddon and no Armageddon Online. So in a way every post is because of God.


But i will agree with you on this.... CHRISTAIN ROCK SUKS!

[bbbv3.5]

damnnit, quoted wrong post. Evilwill, i was talking to YOU!

[playmaker88]

Actually I got here by typing 'Supervolcanos' into my search engine. I realise the connection between God and Armageddon through the bible, but I happen to believe that the bible was witten by humans, the same species that I believe invented God. So I'm here only because long ago someone wrote a large book about a God that produced a word that happened, quite a few years down the line to be associated with supervolcanos. :pray:

[mickydoolittle]

How would you come to armageddon online without god. Basically we all typed in Armageddon in google, yahoo or msn searches. If there was no God there would be no word Armageddon and no Armageddon Online. So in a way every post is because of God.

I used Yahoo looking for info on vegas....and I found vegasronin & AO when they were still with EZ Board.

You're very foundation of your argument is total BS. As is your root thought processing ability.

So there.

[Defiant Noquisi]

I got here the same way as Playmaker, searching super volcanoes in Google. No "god" had anything to do with it. :Blbl:

[evilwill]

Here is an observation if you all do not believe in God and think he is not real. How would you come to armageddon online without god. Basically we all typed in Armageddon in google, yahoo or msn searches. If there was no God there would be no word Armageddon and no Armageddon Online. So in a way every post is because of God.

That is a load of crap. We created language, not your supposed god. As Micky said your argument has no basis at all. And I found my way here by the help of Micky. He placed a link to this place on another message board when AO was still with ezboard.

[lotrfan55345]

The concept of "Armageddon" was made millions of years ago. When we were all still Africa....

[midnightsonblaze]

There is a word called 'Free Will' and you do not have to submit to anything period. It's a persons choice wether or not they believe in something. Personally I believe there is something...I don't know what it is, but I always ask myself....what happens when we die. Not my physical body but ME. I just do not exist....

[evilwill]

Christianity just seems to give off a big 'serve god or suffer' kind of theme. Luckily most don't hold that ideal.

[DarkAce]

It's not limited to Christianity, Islam and Judaism is high up there as well. I find the far eastern religions to be better grounded then the three I just mentioned.

[VegasRonin]

I used Yahoo looking for info on vegas....and I found vegasronin & AO when they were still with EZ Board. Hehehe (In my Dracula voice) Come to me Micky. :devsmoke:

[RavenWhitefang]

Here is an observation if you all do not believe in God and think he is not real. How would you come to armageddon online without god. Basically we all typed in Armageddon in google, yahoo or msn searches. If there was no God there would be no word Armageddon and no Armageddon Online. So in a way every post is because of God.


Actually, those of us who did search for Armegeddon didnt come by it from your god. We came by it from the name of a city, a name given by man.

Megiddo - An ancient city of northwest Palestine on the southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon. It was the scene of many battles throughout early history because of its strategic position on the route connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.

Armageddon - Symbolically designating the place where the "battle of that great day of god almighty" shall be fought. The word properly means the "mount of Megiddo."

[SeekNDestroy]

Seen a I chose the name, I'll end this before we go any more off topic. If we didn't have the word armageddon, I'm sure we'd have another one that meant 'the end of the world' - and the site would be called that instead. The site ain't even ranked all that well on armageddon searches :(

Any Christians want to answer Will's point?

[Chrome Ninja]

Hehehe, good topic

Well i have to disagree with Christianity i believe it's a very Biased, Arrogent and for the most part VERY one sided relgion, im not saying this about all Christians BUT the ones i have met in my life time acted this very way.

This one guy i met hade sorta a Blind justice, ignorant attitude who beleive he was superior to all other Religions (Jews) and all other races (Native Americans and Blacks).
and after this piont in my life i lost all respect for Christians because of what it can do to you and Ultimatly your Morals.

[bbbv3.5]

75% percent of Catholics read from the textbook. That is what gets me pissed off about the religion. You dont go to mass and you go to hell. Catholic Belief. If i live a good life but never go to church I am lucifer. Also the whole way they interpert relevations is crazy.

Also the book of Genesis is a fake. How do we know all that shit????

Evilwill, we dont bow down to God in fear. I love God for creating me. I believe he is responsible for me living and I thank him for it. I dont fear God. Maybe some catholics do but I do not. I am a part of the 25% that do our "faith" differently. We look like idiots because the 75% wont shut up and tell everbody that we are going to hell.

If you want to find out what my beliefs are, PM me or IM me on AIM.

I believe in Mary and Jesus, I believe in that part of the bible. I believe in heaven. But how we are resembled as either evil or good is what changes my religion from the Catholic.

[mickydoolittle]

Evilwill, we dont bow down to God in fear. I love God for creating me. I believe he is responsible for me living and I thank him for it. I dont fear God. Maybe some catholics do but I do not. I am a part of the 25% that do our "faith" differently. We look like idiots because the 75% wont shut up and tell everbody that we are going to hell.


You're not a follower.

If you're going to do something--DO IT RIGHT or don't do it all!

WTH?!?! You're still a dolt regardless of believeing only half-way. You're still a part of a religion!

Don't be a fence sitter. :ohmy:

[Wraith13]

Evil Will nailed it on the head, it is about submission to God and His will. I am happy to be a part of that, because I know for fact that He will take care of me, and grants me life even in the face of death. And no, what Grace He has given me does not make me better than any man, and I certainly don't want to be better than any man, I just want to do my part for God. Pride is the greatest sin of all, it led the Light Bearer to a fall from heaven and it continues to corrupt many today. Fact of the matter is, God is infintely more intelligent and aware than we could ever be. We are talking of a being who is at the beginning and end, who knows our every thought, good or bad, and has the power to create or destroy an entire galaxy in the blink of an eye. And yet there are so many who think they know better, who believe humanity can come together and create utopia, which incidentally means 'nowhere'. Many believe God to be capricious, sending people to hell at a whim, but this isn't true either. Bear with me on this train of thought. If your dad tells you not to do something, making you aware that punishment is the result of disobeyment and reward is what you get for obeying, then you cannot say you didn't know the consequences of your actions. You were warned beforehand, so then you make the decision of your fate, not God. We are all told, all we have to do is obey. I understand that many on this earth have a problem with doing what we're told, but honestly, what's so hard and bad about depending on God, having faith, trying to live a good clean life? Really, what is the aversion to that?

By the way, I noticed the 'man wrote the bible' cliche again. Some of you guys need to get on the same page. It goes like this: If man wrote the bible, then there is no God. If there is no God, that removes the root cause of what many blame on God, such as, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, every war, Bush, etc, and so on. So if there is no God, then the cause for all these actions must be man. If man is indeed the cause for all these atrocities, why should I pay man homage? You can't blame all that stuff on God and then say there is no God, it does not work like that. You either have to acknowledge God so you can blame him for all that, or acknowledge that man is a greedy, prideful, money hungry little insect that will make himself extinct because of his stupidity and shortsighted nature. Cake and all that.

[LC Jeffries]

Can I ask you all a question? What is wrong with being submissive? Do we need everyone to be Generals? And not have any Soldiers? :confused:

[Defiant Noquisi]

By the way, I noticed the 'man wrote the bible' cliche again.<snip>...... or acknowledge that man is a greedy, prideful, money hungry little insect that will make himself extinct because of his stupidity and shortsighted nature. Cake and all that. Its not a cliche', its the truth. What I find amusing is that even the learned theologic scholars argued/continue to argue over the contents and what should have been/should be included as biblical scripture. How can anyone expect people to /read/believe/have faith in those written works when they cant even agree on what should be in it and/or whats missing?

"acknowledge that man is.." Damn straight! Quit blaming your foolish weaknesses on something else and hold yourself accountable. :yes:

[Defiant Noquisi]

Can I ask you all a question? What is wrong with being submissive? Do we need everyone to be Generals? And not have any Soldiers? :confused: I grew up with it as "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians". LOL There is nothing wrong with being submissive at times. I can think of a couple of instances where it was of my best interest to be. :grin

However, in the religious sense what I learned in all the years of bible study, sunday school was that it didnt make sense. Early on Indians were taught that if our ancestors didnt submit to the religious zealotry at that time, bad things would happen. What they couldnt understand was why the punishers would commit these horrible acts "In the name of God" or "because God said so", yet they were intelligent enough to figure out that the Creator had nothing to do with it, MEN were commiting these acts.

There are letters on file in the Library of Congress from Popes to people coming to the "New" World giving them permission to take the land and its riches and convert the heathen savages to God by "any means neccesary". What that usually meant was by torture, dismemberment, rape and murder, again "in the name of God".

The spirituality of my ancestors taught to me now does not allow being "submissive". Being submissive is equitable to being weak which equals the eventual death of our people and extinction of the Cherokee. Not being submissive does not equal all being leaders in our beliefs either. We each do what is right for the community which is also right for the individual.

Dont get me wrong, most Indians are HUMBLE people, but being humble has nothing to do with being submissive.

No, being submissive has brought about alot of bad things for Indians.

So sayeth the shepard! So sayeth the flock!

[LC Jeffries]

I agree with you. My own background on my Moms side of the family are Cree and I admit, I don't know anything about my family in Canada or even my ancestors. My Great Great Grandfather came down from Canada to live in Alabama is all I know. He had fled along with his wife and son from some kind of prosecution in Canada. (My Dad is Scotts.)

Christian's throughout history moved away from Jesus's true teachings to force nations to submit to their will. It was an excuse to gain power. It was not true Christ Like Faith. It was a power hungrey greedy man who felt he was above others. This goes against what Christ taught.

Jesus I imagine was very angry about what suppossed Christians did in His name.

[Defiant Noquisi]

I agree with you. My own background on my Moms side of the family are Cree and I admit, I don't know anything about my family in Canada or even my ancestors.<snip>Jesus I imagine was very angry about what suppossed Christians did in His name.If you ever did decide to learn about it just be forwarned, what you learn will cause an uprising in every Christian bone in your body. Although there are many similarities between the two, there are just as many beliefs that are completely opposite.

If I was Jesus Id be pissed off too. How could anyone put the responsibility of their own actions on someone/something else? I dont doubt he existed, theres too many ancient philisophical works that have notations about him. He's just not a saviour to Indians, at least not us that aren't "prayin'" ones. :bye:

[autryn2]

I just had to get in on this one!

You people are SO funny. You're always writing the same kind of crap like this: "Christianity is bogus because some person who believes in God said this or did that..."

Let me ask you a question: Are any of you perfect because of what you believe in????

The answer is NO!!!!

Christians are, after all, flawed people, just like you. Christians STRIVE to be perfect (if they are genuine and pure about their faith) but they are still people with all the limitations, prejudices, and other flaws of mankind.

Judging a Perfect Creator based on the actions of flawed mankind simply defies logic. Your stance doesn't even take into account the MANY people who don't really believe in God but try to use religion for their own purpose. And saying "well, God made us that way" is just a cop out.... you're just looking for an excuse.

The reason that we are here is BECAUSE OF GOD. HE gives us our reason for being here because He made us. Like it or not, guys, God owns us... we are His property just like EVERYTHING else.

Christians CHOOSE to serve God because God chose to send His son Christ and let Him die a gruesome death on the cross to prove to us that He LOVES US. We're not forced to serve... we desire to serve He who loved us first.

You can bellyache all you want to but the fact is we are owned by our creator and it our choice whether or not to serve, or even interact, with Him. Thats just the way it is..... like it or not.

Let me ask you this: Have you ever written a story???? Do you believe that a character you 'made up' in the story you wrote has a right to question you, the author, for his or her purpose or place in that story???? Well, we are Gods' story......

[playmaker88]

The reason that we are here is BECAUSE OF GOD. HE gives us our reason for being here because He made us. Like it or not, guys, God owns us... we are His property just like EVERYTHING else.

Christians CHOOSE to serve God because God chose to send His son Christ and let Him die a gruesome death on the cross to prove to us that He LOVES US. We're not forced to serve... we desire to serve He who loved us first.

You can bellyache all you want to but the fact is we are owned by our creator and it our choice whether or not to serve, or even interact, with Him. Thats just the way it is..... like it or not.

Let me ask you this: Have you ever written a story???? Do you believe that a character you 'made up' in the story you wrote has a right to question you, the author, for his or her purpose or place in that story???? Well, we are Gods' story......

Where is your proof that God made us? God in your view, may have let his son die gruesomely to prove that he loved people two thousand years ago, but he hasn't proved anything since. He didn't prove it to me, I wasn't there.

I was created by my mother and fathers sexual relationship and they DON'T OWN ME. Yes I have written stories but I'm afraid that the characters were pure fiction. If I question my father now, he would deem that to be my right, he would consider it an acceptable adult conversation with his son. I can't question my mother because she is dead. She now only exists in the memories of the people who knew her. That is life, that is death. No God involved in my opinion.

Did your mother and father have anything to do with your creation or was it all the work of God?

[Moishe3rd]

The fact is, we all bow down to something.
You can bow down to your money or your football team or your mommy or your daddy.
You can bow down to your yard chores or your exam grades.
You can bow down to your boss or your wife.
You can bow down to the chances of getting a blow job or your chances of winning the lottery.
Every single person on this planet worships at the feet of something or someone.
If you think you are totally free of all control and you have no compulsions, then I challenge you to state what it is that you most enjoy doing; what it is that you think most about; what it is that you aspire to; what it is that you dream about.
Some of us choose to bow down to G-d....

Gotta Serve Somebody
Bob Dylan

You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage,
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,
You may be a business man or some high degree thief,
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk,
You may be the head of some big TV network,
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame,
You may be living in another country under another name

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home,
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome,
You might own guns and you might even own tanks,
You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,
You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk,
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk,
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread,
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy,
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy,
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray,
You may call me anything but no matter what you say

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody.
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

[autryn2]

Playmaker88 wrote:
"I can't question my mother because she is dead."
-----------------------------------------------
My mother is also dead (dad too). They KNOW the truth.
Me-n-you right now can only have faith in our beliefs.

But I'll tell you one thing: There is no such thing as 'relative truth'
for eternal issues. We may BOTH be incorrect about our beliefs in
the here-after but we both can't be right.

In your world when we die we're gone (or don't have to answer
to God). I hope you're very confident in that position, because
you (and I) are closer to knowing the truth every day. My dad felt
just like you.... no God, no soul, no afterlife, nothing. Felt that way
his whole life.... until he was on his death bed and accepted Christ.

You will also be faced with that same scenario. We'll see how you face
death believing there is nothing on the other side (or no judgement). Lets just see how confident you are then...

For myself, I not only believe in the God of the bible, and in His Son Christ, I CHOOSE to serve by helping other people. I am comforted in the fact that when my life draws to an end, I'll be able to look back and see that I ADDED to the positive things in this world, and when I die and I stand before my Creator, I'll also be comforted in that I willingly obeyed my Creator. If I die and there is nothingness.... I'll still have lived a helpful, productive life and will be comforted that I did my best and lived a good life.

If you die and there is nothingness....good for you. But what if you die and YOU"RE WRONG.... what then???

Also, in answer to the question "Where is your proof that God made us? God in your view, may have let his son die gruesomely to prove that he loved people two thousand years ago, but he hasn't proved anything since. He didn't prove it to me, I wasn't there.", how many times SHOULD God have sent Christ???? If you read in the Bible, God sent Christ for EVERYONE (on the earth at that time, past, present, future, everyone). He also left you the Bible even though you weren't there at the time so you could understand what happened. He also sent me (and others) to live on this world now so we could tell you the truth...if you'll listen.

[LC Jeffries]

If you ever did decide to learn about it just be forwarned, what you learn will cause an uprising in every Christian bone in your body. Although there are many similarities between the two, there are just as many beliefs that are completely opposite.

If I was Jesus Id be pissed off too. How could anyone put the responsibility of their own actions on someone/something else? I dont doubt he existed, theres too many ancient philisophical works that have notations about him. He's just not a saviour to Indians, at least not us that aren't "prayin'" ones. :bye:

You would be surprised at how large the Native American Christian Community is.

Go to www.firstnationsmonday.com and see what I'm talking about. You would be really surprised.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Im not suprised. I run into them all the time. Even people I work for on occasion in the tribal office. Luckily there are quite a few that remember the old teachings of basically to each his own. We get along great then and I can go about being the "sinnin'" Indian I have always been. :crazy:

[Defiant Noquisi]

If you think you are totally free of all control and you have no compulsions, then I challenge you to state what it is that you most enjoy doing; what it is that you think most about; what it is that you aspire to; what it is that you dream about.Well since you put it this way...

I dream about a hot Indian male, dark skin with long black hair, eyes the color of obsidian, hes got a right knee, a left knee and about an 8" weenee and Im bowed down before him.... :Bott: :thumbs:

[playmaker88]

If you read in the Bible, God sent Christ for EVERYONE (on the earth at that time, past, present, future, everyone). He also left you the Bible even though you weren't there at the time so you could understand what happened. He also sent me (and others) to live on this world now so we could tell you the truth...if you'll listen.

The bible is your proof. The bible is probably the biggest work of fiction ever written. A bible in which your God, the creator, encourages slavery, encourages rape, commits mass murder, encourages mass murder, contradicts his omnipotence, sadistically tests and taunts his closest human ally. I've read enough of the bible to understand that much. I feel honoured that he sent you to educate me. If you're basing your life on this book, then I suggest you read it thoroughly.

So my original question, were you created by your mother and fathers sexual relationship then? And were they not created by their mothers and fathers and so on.

As for me changing my mind when I'm close to death, been there and didn't. :pray:

[autryn2]

From John Chapter 8:

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."


Certainly its your choice to not take the bible as an authority.....
BTW, somewhere up the line someone had to create somebody for them to have offspring.

[playmaker88]

Certainly its your choice to not take the bible as an authority.....
BTW, somewhere up the line someone had to create somebody for them to have offspring.

What created God?

Your God promotes slavery - Leviticus Ch25 V44-46
Your God is a Murderer - Exodus Ch12 V29-30
Your God promotes rape and doesn't punish it - Leviticus Ch19 V20-22 and Deuteronomy Ch20 V10-14
Your God proves he is not omnipotent and sadistically tests and taunts his closest human ally - Genesis Ch22 V1-12

[Moishe3rd]

Playmaker,
You choose to believe what you believe. This is good.
But, you know nothing about the Torah.
Unfortunately, you believe that what you have been told about "the bible" is the same thing as what the Jews refer to as the Torah (you might refer to it as the "Old Testament."). And, it's not.
But, to answer your basic question. No one created G-d.
If G-d is created, then G-d is not G-d. This is the Worm Ourobouros for you -the snake that is constantly eating its own tail; a never-ending story of creation / death / rebirth.
As your mind cannot logically fathom a Creator without beginning, you reject it. Okey - dokey. But, that doesn't mean that G-d has to be created - because you can't comprehend it??? :lol:

[Ghostrider ESP]

In the same way as religious people refuse to accept the big bang theory. :grin

[playmaker88]

Playmaker,
You choose to believe what you believe. This is good.
But, you know nothing about the Torah.
Unfortunately, you believe that what you have been told about "the bible" is the same thing as what the Jews refer to as the Torah (you might refer to it as the "Old Testament."). And, it's not.


So what you're actually telling me then is that the "old testament" is BS.
Does this mean that you subscribe to the christian scriptures only (sorry "New Testament").

I wasn't quoting what I'd been told. I was quoting chapters and verses that I have read.

[LC Jeffries]

Playmaker,

Can I ask you a couple questions? Do you believe you have a Spirit and a Soul? Do you believe you have a physical body?

Christians believe that Him who is Almighty has the same thing we've got. A mortal body named Jesus, The Holy Spirit which is His Spirit and The Father who is his soul, which also contains female characteristics.(This might upset some Christians.) Yes God has some female attributes. If he didn't then He would not have made a women.

When a Male and a Female Unite in marriage they become One being, Man. They define God.

This might be a little different point of view from a Christian. But God has always been, Always will be and will Continue to Be. I like to call Him the Mighty Heartbeat of the Universe.

[Moishe3rd]

I apologize.
The Torah is the first five books of what you call the Old Testament. It is also the rest of the "old testament," but different. It is also all of the commentaries on the Torah that have been written for the last three thousand years, but different.
The point being that in order to understand what you call "the bible," which I call the Torah, (no, the "new testament" is not part of the Torah), you have to study it. All of it.
Just because you can quote chapter and verse of the written Torah, doesn't mean you understand what it is saying.
In the Torah, G-d specifically condemns and codifies the punishments for slavery, murder and rape.
What you believe that you are listing as quotes that somehow demonstrates that G-d is evil and sadistic is a mistranslation of a mistranslation of a misunderstanding of wrongly described very general instructions that have been misconstrued.
But, everyone can believe whatever silly thing they choose to believe.
Even if they are totally without comprehension. :Bow:

[playmaker88]

Just because you can quote chapter and verse of the written Torah, doesn't mean you understand what it is saying.
In the Torah, G-d specifically condemns and codifies the punishments for slavery, murder and rape.
What you believe that you are listing as quotes that somehow demonstrates that G-d is evil and sadistic is a mistranslation of a mistranslation of a misunderstanding of wrongly described very general instructions that have been misconstrued.
But, everyone can believe whatever silly thing they choose to believe.
Even if they are totally without comprehension. :Bow:

I'm glad you mentioned mistranslation because the bible old and new testaments have gone through re-translation after re-translation. I'm interested to know which VERSION, you have of the scriptures, the original hebrew text of the old testament? The Greek scriptures of the New testament? It's seems strange that everything that is negative is a mistranslation and yet everything positive is divine word.

The best cure for Christianity is to read the Bible with an open mind.

Theology is a body of conjecture, not a body of knowledge. And inspiration is merely a theological theory, not a fact; it is a matter of opinion.

[playmaker88]

Leviticus Chapter 25, Verses 44-46 read 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; From them you may buy slaves, you may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their class born in your country. And they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.'


Exodus Chapter 12, verses 29-30 read 'And it came to pass, that of midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of the pharoah that sat on his throne unto the first born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And pharoah rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.'

I think you would agree that it would take quite a mistranslation and quite an imagination for these to be understood in any other form than God promotes slavery and God is a mass murderer. I would be interested in hearing your version of these events. Maybe you could retranslate it to the positive. I personally don't see that there is very much to misunderstand.

If the translation is that far off in these sections of the bible, then how can you be sure it is not affecting the whole scriptures. It is you that has BLIND FAITH. It is you that does not have reasoning and it is you who believes any SILLY little thing. I am offering proof. I would like some in return. Not just words of faith with nothing to substantiate them.

[Ghostrider ESP]

They do say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the second greatest work of fiction ever written.

As my signature says

[DarkAce]

I would figure those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

[Wraith13]

I can honestly say that I identify most with the native american. I have algonquin blood, and I participated in some ceremonies. Both of us have been persecuted. And who is to say that my LORD has not manifested himself to NA in ages past? We don't know for sure. I must confess I am not boned up on NA spirituality, but there are indeed many similarities.

Oh, and it is a cliche. Those who argue about what must be in the bible do so to feel important. What was meant to be in the Holy Word, is in the Holy Word. End of discussion on that front. The point was whether or not man wrote it on his own or under the direction of the LORD.

[playmaker88]

Oh, and it is a cliche. Those who argue about what must be in the bible do so to feel important. What was meant to be in the Holy Word, is in the Holy Word. End of discussion on that front. The point was whether or not man wrote it on his own or under the direction of the LORD.

It is those who believe there MUST be a God, MUST be an afterlife, MUST be a deeper meaning, MUST be more to this life who are being arrogant and who feel that the human race is SO important.

We're of far less importance to this planet than the common earthworm, who does some good to the land and provides other species with food, humans just destroy. End of discussion my A*se, oh ye of BLIND faith. No one has proved that a God, or LORD exists yet.

[mickydoolittle]

Let me ask you a question: Are any of you perfect because of what you believe in???? The answer is ...

…who really gives a flying fuq about being perfect? Try being human--you'll enjoy life that much more.


Christians are, after all, flawed people, just like you. Christians STRIVE to be perfect (if they are genuine and pure about their faith) but they are still people with all the limitations, prejudices, and other flaws of mankind.
Christians are human--not flawed. Your level of self-loathing is surprising, but not unexpected. Mankind is nothing more than the best of our collective existence. Our worst is seen and reported every day by the media--what right do you have to tell other ppl how limited, prejudiced, and flawed they are? The only flaw in the world is that of allowing religion to run rampant with followers like you teaching how fuq’d we who aren’t like you are. It's ppl like you who are detrimental to the collective betterment of our species--always telling us how we are nothing without your god. You’re no different than those self-help assholes who write books telling the reader how to make their life and those around them better.

Well fuq you and all those like you. Take your regressive approach to life (religion) and stick it up your ass.


Judging a Perfect Creator based on the actions of flawed mankind simply defies logic. Your stance doesn't even take into account the MANY people who don't really believe in God but try to use religion for their own purpose. And saying "well, God made us that way" is just a cop out.... you're just looking for an excuse.
Your alleged perfect creator would be defined as utter nothingness. That would be something devoid of all that would flaw it, and that would of course be nothing. You follow nothing. Congratulations genius. Everyone uses religion for their own purpose--that's why they follow it, for their own betterment to try and please and serve god as they can--as they percieve it. Your whole argument is flawed from the onset. Way to go...woohoo.


The reason that we are here is BECAUSE OF GOD. HE gives us our reason for being here because He made us. Like it or not, guys, God owns us... we are His property just like EVERYTHING else.
Yeah, that's right we are here as humans yet we are to disregard all that which makes us human. We are to shun our humanity with every breath we take. You post about going to hell after you die, but you're living in hell right now--how much worse of an existence can you imagine than denying every day that which makes you, well, you?


Christians CHOOSE to serve God because God chose to send His son Christ and let Him die a gruesome death on the cross to prove to us that He LOVES US. We're not forced to serve... we desire to serve He who loved us first.
Wrong, christians are opting to subject themselves to the propaganda they are convinced is truth. They'd rather be enslaved for all eternity with streets of gold (propaganda), mansions(propaganda), new pain-free bodies(propaganda), all the wealth at their finger tips with no wants to be had(propaganda). They'd rather have all that material wealth than burn in hell. It's not real hard to see through the smoke and mirrors once you start thinking for yourself.


You can bellyache all you want to but the fact is we are owned by our creator and it our choice whether or not to serve, or even interact, with Him. Thats just the way it is..... like it or not.
You are so vocal about being willing to enter into enslavement for all eternity--I have some cars to be washed, some land to be tilled, some laundry to be done, some groceries to be purchased, some meals to be cooked, and I'd REALLY like it if you sang about how goddamned great I am while you do it--AND, I'll let you stay in my poolhouse until you die--what do you say? I'll even allow you to be buried on my land after you'redead--it could use the fertilization.


Let me ask you this: Have you ever written a story???? Do you believe that a character you 'made up' in the story you wrote has a right to question you, the author, for his or her purpose or place in that story???? Well, we are Gods' story......
You are daft. You are admitting to being a pawn for something greater than you to be toyed with while on earth and then subjected to something that he tells his ppl not to put up with for all eternity----you are the largest contradiction since alan.

Pom. :pyth:

BTW - your attitude did nothing to gather support for your brainwashing

[autryn2]

Mickey, all your doctrine would be easier to swallow IF there was, in fact, no God. But, Mickey... the God of the Bible is real.

Do you believe in reality??? As in undeniable fact??? People like you enjoy debating religion and God from the viewpoint that He is an abstract thought to be bandied about like some rhetorical question. Like if you don't believe in Him, He'll just cease to exist. Its so funny, here you are replying to my writtings but you've never met me... just read what I have typed. How do you know I"M not real either... you've never seen ME.

Because God is not an abstract thought but IS real... He cannot be changed by your denial of Him, no matter how vehement.

Mickey wrote:
"Well fuq you and all those like you. Take your regressive approach to life (religion) and stick it up your ass."

Dude, you are going to be SO embarrassed about that one day.... when you are standing before God in your judgement, remember what I said here and now.

From Matthew Chapter 10:
Jesus said:
14: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15: I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

The story of Christ is the story of loving others (not yourself)... I hope you learn that. I'm not here trying to brainwash anyone. I'm here out of concern for your eternal soul. You may not want to hear that, you may THINK I have a hidden agenda... but thats why I'm here plain and simple.

[mickydoolittle]

well, you're no jesus christ. :sleeping:

And you are an expert on the future because...?

Yeah, take the rest of your propaganda with your lies and deceit, and calmy proceed into the next industrial woodchipper nearest you.

It is indeed all the same in the end. We are recycled--nothing remains but the memories held by those who knew us. And those who know me understand my superior AMERICAn intelligence that will reign free of your encumbrance--think about your life and understand that :wlink: . Get used to spending all your time on your knees.

[playmaker88]

Mickey, all your doctrine would be easier to swallow IF there was, in fact, no God. But, Mickey... the God of the Bible is real.

Do you believe in reality??? As in undeniable fact??? People like you enjoy debating religion and God from the viewpoint that He is an abstract thought to be bandied about like some rhetorical question. Like if you don't believe in Him, He'll just cease to exist. Its so funny, here you are replying to my writtings but you've never met me... just read what I have typed. How do you know I"M not real either... you've never seen ME.

Because God is not an abstract thought but IS real... He cannot be changed by your denial of Him, no matter how vehement.

Dude, you are going to be SO embarrassed about that one day.... when you are standing before God in your judgement, remember what I said here and now.

From Matthew Chapter 10:
Jesus said:
14: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15: I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

The story of Christ is the story of loving others (not yourself)... I hope you learn that. I'm not here trying to brainwash anyone. I'm here out of concern for your eternal soul. You may not want to hear that, you may THINK I have a hidden agenda... but thats why I'm here plain and simple.

As you enjoy quoting the bible so much try this for a thought and then give me a rational explanation.

Matthew's gospel contains a genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:7) which traces him from Abraham on down through Solomon, a son of David, whereas the genealogy found in the gospel of Luke (3:31) traces Jesus from Adam through Nathan, a completely different son of David. Even a cursory study will show names present in Matthew's account that do not match up to those in Luke, and vice versa.

A point to note here is that to include ANY sort of a male genealogy of Jesus through Joseph is somewhat of an oddity, being that Jesus did not have a biological father. A more proper genealogy would have to be that of his mother, Mary--not of Joseph.

I believe you exist because you typed something to Micky, that was a physical action. Who you are? or what you stand for? we can only deduct from your drivel that proves nothing. Show me one of Gods physical actions, prove it was God and I might change my mind.

Lay off the BS. You prove nothing to me other than the fact you have BLIND FAITH. That is not proof of any God. I thankyou for continuingly giving me the chance to PROVE that the bible (old and new testament) is indeed BS.

[mickydoolittle]

the patriarchial lineage of christ that was traced and so intensely promoted was due to the patriarchial contol of society and that women don't count over there--never did and are only now seeing equality. But, too late for her

You can't prove god exists any more than you can prove he doesn't exist. This is due to man being man (human) and not able to adequately express reason that god exists or doesn't exist because we are not on the perception level of a divine being. God simply doesn't exist in human rationale conception --thus the irony is such that proof will never be achieved either way.

Although, that doesn't stop simple founded solid logic from being used to gather support for one side of the argument vs the other.

duh.

[playmaker88]

I can and will continue to prove that the bible, christians basis for believing that there is a God, is absolute BS. If there is a God, let it prove its existence. :bs:

[playmaker88]

the patriarchial lineage of christ that was traced and so intensely promoted was due to the patriarchial contol of society and that women don't count over there--never did and are only now seeing equality. But, too late for her


And this answers my question how regarding Matthew saying one thing and Luke saying another how? DUH! :bs:

[autryn2]

David's line in Matthew is the royal line through Solomon. His line in Luke 3:23-38 is through Nathan, another son (2Sam. 5:14), and Heli, the father of Mary, both lines were necessary in fulfilling prophecy. God had cursed Jechoniah (coniah or Jehoiachin) of the royal line and sworn that no seed of his should ever sit on the throne of David and reign in Jerusalem (jer. 22:24-30). God had also sworn to David that his line through Solomon would forever sit on his throne (2 Sam. 7). The only way this could be fulfilled was for Jesus, the Son of David through Nathan and Mary, to become the legal heir to the throne of David through Joseph of the Kingly line (lk. 1:32-33; Isa. 9:6-7; Rev. 5:5 22:16). Jesus, being the foster Son of Joseph and the first heir to David's throne through Joseph.

Both the Davidic lines, that of Solomon and Nathan united in Zerubbabel by the marriage of Salathial to the daughter of Neri of Nathan's line. Neri no doubt died without male issue, the two branches of David were thus united in Zerubbabel and Christ became the heir to the blood rights and privileges of the whole house of David.

The line of Nathan, the elder brother of Solmon (1 Chr. 3:5), is not mentioned in O.T. scriptures as much as the line of Solomon.

Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. The custom of Jesus's day was to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

88, I believe that custom was what Mickey was refering to.... DUH!!!!

[playmaker88]

Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. The custom of Jesus's day was to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

88, I believe that custom was what Mickey was refering to.... DUH!!!!

Then correct me if I'm wrong but Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, so how can Jesus' genealogy come through Joseph. DUH! :deal:

As I stated
"A point to note here is that to include ANY sort of a male genealogy of Jesus through Joseph is somewhat of an oddity, being that Jesus did not have a biological father. A more proper genealogy would HAVE to be that of his mother, Mary--not of Joseph."

[playmaker88]

A major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection:
A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).
If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false.

[autryn2]

Jesus was Joseph's adopted son, and by this, according to Jewish law, LEGALLY filled the requirement for right to the throne of David. Jesus fulfilled the requirement to the throne by BLOOD, through Mary, whose lineage is traced through Luke, thus establishing Jesus' right to the throne both legally, and by blood.

[autryn2]

"two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false."

Of all the things you have written on this forum, the above is the best....

Either God exists or not...
Either Christ was His Son or not....
You either believe or you do not...

Each must make up their own mind about the factuality of God and Christ.
But their belief, either for or against, has no affect on the TRUTH, on what is REAL.... and all your "block and copy" daggers against God, Christ, and/or the Bible cannot affect their reality, their existence......

[playmaker88]

Okay. Get back to me on the resurrection conundrum when you can. I feel like I'm expanding my knowledge. I feel like I've learned something of bloodlines from two millenia back. Genealogy was obviously the wrong word to use.

Looks like the bible just got another billion years out of date

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3732157.stm

I know all about you people taking the 7 days as being a metaphor. Just find it really strange that more than 14 billion years are only worth the mention of a few mere lines in the creators book. I always feel that the dinosaurs get a rough deal afterall they spent a lot more time on the planet than wew ever have. Just having a laugh, if you could concentrate your thoughts and educate me on the resurrection. Let us not get side-tracked.

[playmaker88]

"two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false."

Of all the things you have written on this forum, the above is the best....

Either God exists or not...
Either Christ was His Son or not....
You either believe or you do not...

Each must make up their own mind about the factuality of God and Christ.
But their belief, either for or against, has no affect on the TRUTH, on what is REAL.... and all your "block and copy" daggers against God, Christ, and/or the Bible cannot affect their reality, their existence......

Yes either God exists or he doesn't? Either Christ existed or he didn't?
You either believe or you do not? One of these views is TRUE, one of these views MUST be FALSE.

We haven't proved either to be true yet. Why is TRUTH and REAL in capital letters in your post? As far as I can see it is the truth because you say so.

You cannot prove yours is the truth or real. Say it enough times and it becomes fact, is that your logic? Now if you'd like to explain the inconsistencies with the resurrection that flaws your precious book.

[autryn2]

From Luke Chapter 16:
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[3] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Verses 27 thru 31 are for you. I answered you on the Jesus geneology question but you didn't care about that. You only ran to another topic so you could throw another dagger. The truth is you don't want to believe... plain and simple.... and NO argument, proof, or miracle will convince you. I just wanted you to know where you are mentioned in the Bible.

BTW, I believe God set our world up the way it is... so that there is not conclusive proof of God and Christ so that we'd have to have faith (I know, I know, you're going to say that I have that stance so I can defend God with no proof... but it is not out of necessity that I believe this).

Also, Dinosaurs ARE talked about (by God, no less) in Job. Dragons too.

[playmaker88]

I take it from your answer that the resurrection of christ referred to in your book is BS. If you could give me the relevant chapter in Job, that refers to the dinosaurs, I would much appreciate it.

I see Leviathan (my bible quotes "some say this to be the crocodile, others a legendary monster. Magicians were thought to be able to make him cause eclipses of the Sun".)
I see Rahab ("a legendary sea-monster which represented the forces of chaos and evil"). I see other references to sea-monster. Behemoth ("identifed with the hippopotamus"). No dinosaurs as such, certainly not in the context of living 65 million years ago or anytime before that. All beasts mentioned, are mentioned in co-existince with man.

Did your God create Rahab? If so, why? Sounds like a nasty piece of work to me. Is that why they say "The Lord moves in mysterious ways." ?

[autryn2]

RE: Dinosaurs
from Job Chapter 40:
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

You wrote:"Behemoth ("identifed with the hippopotamus")

Question (since you dismiss the Bible so quickly) How big is the tail of a
hippopotamus???

Now check out verse 17: "He moveth his tail like a cedar"
God is talking about a dinosaur, dude!!!!

BTW, since there weren't any paleantologists(sp?) during the time when Job was written (you know, tents, bronze spears, etc...). If the Bible is bogus, how is it that MAN wrote this story when the Dinosaurs were already extinct???

[autryn2]

Job 41
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote: "some say this to be the crocodile"

Question: When was the last time you saw a fire-breathing crocodile???

Read the last three verses (19, 20, & 21).... God's telling Job about a Dragon!!!

[playmaker88]

You seem very keen to answer the question on dinosaurs but not the one on resurrection. The day they show me a skeleton of a dragon from 2000-3000 years ago, I'll go with your response.

Paleontologists are around now but dinosaurs are not. The bones they dig up belonging to dinosaurs are over 65 million years old. As for hippo with a tail and fire breathing crocodile, I'm only quoting my copy of the bible. I forgot that there were so many different translations and versions. If you'd like to check it out it's called the Good News Bible published by Collins Fontana.

Do you want to tell me which particular dinosaur breathed fire? I must've missed that one. You're just as likely to see a hippo with a large tail afterall this is the greatest work of fiction ever written. Have you got room for a unicorn too?

It says he moves his tail like a cedar, not his tail is the size of a cedar. A cedar would sway in the breeze, a hippo may swing its tail.

[autryn2]

Evidence for the Resurrection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Matt Perman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wanted to disprove Christianity, what would you do? The way to disprove Christianity is to disprove the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because Christianity is founded upon the resurrection. If the resurrection goes, so does Christianity. I know that there are many pastors and scholars today who claim to be Christians, yet deny the resurrection. But according to the Bible, if you deny the resurrection you are not a Christian. In fact, if there was no resurrection, there is no Christianity at all. It would do you as much good as living your life with an imaginary friend. The apostle Paul said very clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:17 "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." He goes on to say "If we have hoped in Christ for this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

So the issue before us tonight is very significant. Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? I hope I can show you tonight that He did. Christianity is a reasonable faith. You do not need to leap into the dark to accept it. There are solid reasons for it.

Before beginning, I need to make it clear that the resurrection of Christ is an event of history. It didn't occur in some mystical fantasy land or some special category of religious history. It happened in real space-time. Its occurrence was just as real and concrete as my speaking here to you tonight. Therefore, we should seek to discover whether it is true or false in the same way we investigate any other historical event, such as the civil war.

The way historians determine the truth of an event is by weighing the evidence. A method commonly used today is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

Since the resurrection is an event of history, we should treat it the same way. And as we examine the historical events surrounding the claim that Christ rose from the dead, we will see that the resurrection is by far the best explanation for the evidence. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, we ought to accept the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

The second thing I want to make sure is clear before I being is that in establishing that the resurrection really happened, I am not going to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, I am going to base my case tonight on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these truths are so strong that they are accepted by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.

The three truths are:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these four truths. As I demonstrate to you the evidence for each of this truths, I will also show that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. Then after I have established the truth of each of these, we will see that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three. These three truths create a strongly woven, three chord rope that cannot be broken.

Empty Tomb
To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?

First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, there "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.

Why is this important? Remember that the Jews were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."

Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.

Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. You see, Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as fraud's. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.

Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.

Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!

[autryn2]

Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."

Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim.

I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!

Resurrection Appearances
Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:


For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."

Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:


1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ
Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?

Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that! Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.

Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.

Origin of the Christian Faith
Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? There are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.

Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.

But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religious had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.

Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they had no conception of the messiah rising fro the dead in the middle of history. Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best, they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.

So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.

[autryn2]

These are three independently established facts that we have established. If we deny the resurrection, we are left with at least three inexplicable mysteries. But there is a much, much better explanation than a wimpy appeal to mystery or a far-fetched appeal to a stolen body, hallucination, and mystery religion. The best explanation is that Christ in fact rose from the dead! Even if we take each fact by itself, we have good enough evidence. But taken together, we see that the evidence becomes even stronger. For example, even if two of these facts were to be explained away, there would still be the third truth to establishes the fact of the resurrection.

These three independently established facts also make alternative explanations less plausible. It is generally agreed that the explanation with the best explanatory scope should be accepted. That is, the theory that explains the most of the evidence is more likely to be true. The resurrection is the only hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. If we deny the resurrection, we must come up with three independent natural explanations, not just one. For example, you would have to propose that the Jews stole the body, then the disciples hallucinated, and then somehow the pagan mystery religions influenced their beliefs to make them think of a resurrection. But we have already seen the implausibility of such theories. And trying to combine them will only make matters worse. As Gary Habermas has said, "Combining three improbable theories will not produce a probable explanation. It will actually increase the degree of improbability. Its like putting leaking buckets inside each other, hoping each one will help stop up the leaks in the others. All you will get is a watery mess."

Legend?
Before examining, briefly, the implications of the resurrection, I wish to take a quick look at perhaps the most popular theory today against the resurrection--that it was a legend that developed over time. I have had an extensive debate with an atheist over this issue in a small magazine called The Skeptical Review, and I'm still waiting for him to give me a good argument. The facts we have established so far are enough to put to rest any idea of a legend.

First, we have seen that the testimony of the resurrection goes back to the original experiences. Remember the eyewitness creed of 1 Cor. 15? That is the first-hand testimony of Peter and James. So it is not the case that the resurrection belief evolved over time. Instead, we have testimony from the very people who claimed to have experienced it. Second, how can the myth theory explain the evidence for the empty tomb? Third, the myth theory cannot explain the origin of the Christian faith--for we have already seen that the real resurrection of Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief. Fourth, the myth theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul. Would he be convinced by a myth? His conversion was in fact too early for any myth to have developed by then. How then can we explain his conversion? Do we dare accuse him of lying when he said he saw the risen Christ? Fifth, we have seen the evidence that the empty tomb story in Mark was very early--within seven years of the events. That is not long enough for legends. Sixth, we have seen that the empty tomb narrative lacks the classic traits of legendary development. Seventh, critical scholars agree that the resurrection message was the foundation of the preaching of the early church. Thus, it could not have been the product of the later church. Ninth, there is very good evidence that the gospels and Acts were written very early. For example, the book of Acts never records the death of Paul, which occurred in about 64, or the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70. Since both Jerusalem and Paul are key players in the book of Acts, it seems strange that their demises would be omitted. The best explanation seems to be that Paul's death and Jerusalem's destruction are omitted because the book of Acts had been completed before they happened. This means that Acts was written before 64, when Paul died. Since Acts is volume 2 of Luke's writings, the book of Luke being the first, then the Gospel of Luke was even earlier, perhaps 62. And since most scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written, that gospel would have been composed even earlier, perhaps in the late 50s. This brings us within twenty years of the events, which is not enough time for legends to develop. So the legend theory is not very plausible.

On the basis of the evidence we have seen, it appears to me that the resurrection is the best explanation. It explains the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the existence of the Christian church. No other competing theory can explain all three of these facts. In fact, none of these competing theories can even give a satisfying explanation for even one of these facts. So it seems like the rational person will accept that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Importance of the Resurrection
But, in conclusion, don't we have to ask ourselves what implications this has? Why does it matter? Or is this some dry, dusty old piece of history that has no relevance to our lives? I believe that the resurrection is the most important truth in the world. It has far reaching implications on our lives.

First, the resurrection proves that the claims Jesus made about himself are true. What did Jesus claim? He claimed to be God. One might say, "I don't believe that He claimed to be God, because I don't believe the Bible." But the fact is that even if we take only the passages which skeptical scholars admit as authentic, it can still be shown that Jesus claimed to be God. I have written a paper to demonstrate this. So it is impossible to get around the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. Now, if Jesus had stayed dead in the tomb, it would be foolish to believe this claim. But since He rose from the dead, it would be foolish not to believe it. The resurrection proves that what Jesus said about Himself is true--He is fully God and fully man.

Second, have you ever wondered what reason there is to believe in the Bible? Is there good reason to believe that it was inspired by God, or is it simply a bunch of interesting myths and legends? The resurrection of Jesus answers the question. If Jesus rose from the dead, then we have seen this validates His claim to be God. If He is God, He speaks with absolute certainty and final authority. Therefore, what Jesus said about the Bible must be true. Surely you are going to accept the testimony of one who rose from the dead over the testimony of a skeptical scholar who will one day die himself--without being able to raise himself on the third day. What did Jesus say about the Bible? He said that it was inspired by God and that it cannot error. I will accept the testimony of Jesus over what I would like to be true and over what any other merely human scholar has to say. Therefore I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, without error. Don't get misled by the numerous skeptical and unbelieving theories about the Bible. Trust Jesus--He rose from the dead. Therefore remember as you study the NT in this class, that you are studying the very words of God.

Third, many people are confused by the many different religions in the world. Are they all from God? But on a closer examination we see that they cannot all be from God, because they call contradict each other. They cannot all be true any more than 2+2 can equal both 4 and 5 at the same time. For example, Christianity is the only religion that believes Jesus Christ is God. All other religions say that he was a good man, but not God. Clearly, they cannot both be right! Somebody is wrong. How are we to know which religion is correct? By a simple test: which religion gives the best evidence for its truth? In light of Christ's resurrection, I think that Christianity has the best reasons behind it.

Jesus is the only religious leader who has risen from the dead. All other religious leaders are still in their tombs. Who would you believe? I think the answer is clear: Jesus' resurrection proves that what He said was true. Therefore, we must accept his statement to be the only way to God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through me."

[autryn2]

Fourth, the resurrection of Christ proves that God will judge the world one day. The apostle Paul said, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." The resurrection of Christ proves something very personal and significant to each of us--we will have to give an account of ourselves to a holy God. And if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that we do not measure up to his standard. We are sinful, and therefore deserve to be condemned at His judgement.

Which leads to our fifth point. The resurrection of Christ provides genuine hope for eternal life. Why? Because Jesus says that by trusting in Him, we will be forgiven of our sins and thereby escape being condemned at the judgement. You see, the NT doesn't just tell us that Christ rose from the dead and leave us wondering why He did this. It answers that He did this because we are sinners. And because we have sinned, we are deserving of God's judgment. God is angry with us all because we have attacked His glory. Since God is just, He cannot simply let our sins go. The penalty for our sins must be paid.

The good news is that God, out of His love, became man in Jesus Christ in order to pay the penalty for sinners. On the cross, Jesus died in the place of those who would come to believe in Him. He took upon Himself the very death that we deserve. The apostle Paul says "He was delivered up because of our sins." But the apostle Paul goes on to say "He was raised to life because of our justification." Paul is saying that Christ's resurrection proves that His mission to conquer sin was successful. His resurrection proves that He is a Savior who is not only willing, but also able, to deliver us from the wrath of God that is coming on the day of judgement. The forgiveness that Jesus died and rose to provide is given to those who trust in Him for salvation and a happy future.

Let me close with the sixth reason the resurrection is significant. The Bible says that Christ's resurrection is the pattern that those who believe in Him will follow. In other words, those who believe in Christ will one day be resurrected by God just as He was. The resurrection proves that those who trust in Christ will not be subject in eternity to a half-human existence in just their souls. It proves that our bodies will be resurrected one day. Because of the resurrection of Christ, believers will one day experience, forever, the freedom of having a glorified soul and body.

So, in sum, we have seen that there are many good reasons to believe in the resurrection--which even critical scholars accept, and many strong reasons why it is important to believe in the resurrection. I encourage you to keep thinking about these things, and remember--Christianity is a reasonable faith.

[autryn2]

The long and the short of it is that you can 'block and copy' stuff all day long questioning or trying to refute Christs' legitimacy and I can "block and copy" answers or retorts to your questions all day long...

but the truth is that you're looking for a reason NOT to believe and I'm looking for a reason to believe. Actually, you already don't believe and I already do....

and you know what??? I can live with that because when I stand before God He'll know that I defended Him against YOU....

my belief has changed my life for the better... not only my life but it has also changed the lives of those around me for the better....

I can only hope that your disbelief has affected your life equally well.

[LC Jeffries]

Great Post's!!!!

:Bow: :thumbs: :yes:

[Ghostrider ESP]

The second thing I want to make sure is clear before I being is that in establishing that the resurrection really happened, I am not going to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. The three truths are:


First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, there "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.


Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate.

Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. You see, Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as fraud's. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.

Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!

Playmaker's question was regarding the authenticity of the new testament accounts of this alleged happening. the fact that a multitude of accounts were given in the gospels of this very event. The first paragraph quoted above states "I am not going to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy" and then every point made following on from this relies on the new testament.

1. Where did we learn that the resurrection was preached in the same city that Jesus had been buried shortly before.

2. You're quoting Matthew 28: 11-15 as the basis for this argument, which comes from?

3. You're going on Mark's gospel, which comes from?

4. The FACT that Joseph of Arimethea was the one who buried Christ is stated where? The new testament.

5. The fact that Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine is knowledge obtained from where?

6. Mark's account of the empty tomb comes from where?

7. The tale of women discovering the tomb is taken from the new testament.

Is some sort of pattern emerging here? The author is assuming that the New Testament is the truth because he is basing all his testamony on the book. Playmaker has already shown that if you read one gospel, another contradicts it. It doesn't take pages and pages of "Copy and Pasting" to prove that point.

Your final post however was a good one, you will read things one way because you have faith and you want to believe it and PM88 will read it another because he doesn't. You still have not explained why there are differing accounts in the gospels to this ALLEGED event.

[Ghostrider ESP]

Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."


All of your work is based on a bible that has not yet been proved to be fact and of course is unlikely to ever be proven fact. It is not known to be a fact that Jesus existed, never mind the tomb, so all your statements are based on theological and philosophical assumptions, as are those of the scholar quoted.

[mickydoolittle]

You still have not explained why there are differing accounts in the gospels to this ALLEGED event.

It's quite simple really as it happens all the time even today with media reporting--differing perspectives of those present are often apt to present at times contradictory views and accounts of the same event.

In short: d u h

The above is to show that those who often want to debate or even discredit that which they refuse to accept as something of truth, often turn their logic off and lambast without intellect.

I, of course, never do such. :wink:

Try harder feeb's.

[LC Jeffries]

Exactly, Micky. :vbroll: :Bow:

[Ghostrider ESP]

It's quite simple really as it happens all the time even today with media reporting--differing perspectives of those present are often apt to present at times contradictory views and accounts of the same event.

In short: d u h

The above is to show that those who often want to debate or even discredit that which they refuse to accept as something of truth, often turn their logic off and lambast without intellect.

I, of course, never do such. :wink:

Try harder feeb's.

So which one is to be taken as the gospel truth? If you read the article, you will notice that we are not talking about little inconsistencies.

[mickydoolittle]

So which one is to be taken as the gospel truth? If you read the article, you will notice that we are not talking about little inconsistencies.
Talking? :ohmy: (proof of your not understanding communication via typing on the internet) Talking..... :rolling:

And if you opened your mind a little more to accept intelligent prompting, you'd understand your unwillingness to see the bigger picture will always cause you to stumble over anything larger than your sense of self worth.

Yeah, come back when you can actually understand the topic being posted about.

As for accepting which one as gospel truth--if you're seriously contemplating this, you are beyond assitance and you have proven your complete and total ignorance as you think a book written over 1900 yrs ago is a valid representation of truth today.

This is like shootin' fish in barrrel. and HOW!

[Ghostrider ESP]

As for accepting which one as gospel truth--if you're seriously contemplating this, you are beyond assitance and you have proven your complete and total ignorance as you think a book written over 1900 yrs ago is a valid representation of truth today.


I'm interested in the people who follow this books opinion pinhead. Thus the question, "which one is the gospel truth?". If you deduct from that question that I think a book over 1900 years old is a valid representation of truth today, then it is you who is being a narrow-minded fool.

I asked the question hoping I might learn something from them, as to how their mind works. I learn nothing from you but how to have contempt for fellow human beings thoughts, for you are truly the master of that.

I have respect for these people, although I do not agree with them. The seriousness of their replies shows that their faith is not born of mere whim.

[mickydoolittle]

I'm interested in the people who follow this books opinion pinhead. Thus the question, which is the gospel truth? If you deduct from that question that I think a book over 1900 years old is a valid representation of truth today, then it is you who is being a narrow-minded fool.
No. You're not interested in the ppl who follow it. If you were, you surely wouldn't have attacked as you have. You want the knowledge yourself. Thus, your post questioning the validity of which gospel to accept as a blanket truth is a clear example of your self-loathing search for what you perceive to be truth. If you wanted to know what other's thought, you should have posted such. You're the one questioning the validity of books, which have no value or reference aside from the most vague of historical association. If you want clarity--post with such first. You are not at all what you are making yourself out to be and your ridiculous posts provide ample evidence of such.


I asked the question hoping I might learn something from them, as to how their mind works. I learn nothing from you but how to have contempt for fellow human beings thoughts, for you are truly the master of that.
Wow, nothing gets by you--way to go Poindexter! You earned a gold star for the day. Do you want your pram ride now? You couldn't possibly be here to learn anything--judging by the majority of your posts here thus far, you did nothing aside from attempt to attack those here for their views. There is nothing constructive about you, your posts, or alleged questioning. Liar. Liar. Pants. On. Fire.


I have respect for these people, although I do not agree with them. The seriousness of their replies shows that their faith is not born of mere whim.
You do not, you goddamned liar. You have nothing short of blasphemous weak sarcasm--at best. Your lies don't work here. Haven't you figured that out yet? Everyone here is on to you. geezus....Get a clue and stop your rhetoric, it provides nothing other than the mildest of weak humor.

[autryn2]

it is also applicable here because some are seeking God and others are looking for why God doesn't exist...
=================================================
From John Chapter 16:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[3] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

==================================================

You're probably wondering why I posted the above scripture.
The reason is the last part: 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

Some people see angels and miracles in their life.
Some people do not, will not, and refuse to see anything miraculus about anything... they write it off as coincidence, luck, chance, or whatever.

What's the difference in these people???... I don't have an answer.
But I'll tell you this: I feel sorry for those who can't see God in their lives.
(and no, I'm NOT saying I feel superior to these folks... I just wish they could see things from my perspective). I don't need the Bible to tell me there is a God. I see Him in creation (sunsets, wind on grass, smiles on childrens faces, all over the place) and I am comforted. I'm truly sorry others can't.
==============================================

I think the majority of people who look for reasons (as to why there is NO God) do so because of two things:
1) they don't want to admit blame for anything and Christianity forces a person to look inward and take responsibility for themselves and their actions (or inaction) and
2) they don't want to change. Its easier to look for an out (eg, saying there is no God) and justify why you aren't willing to change. The alternative is to
admit to the need for change in your life (to walk toward God) therefore you have no excuse except to go ahead and change... and that takes work that most are unwilling to attempt.

[DontBeAfraid]

Actually christianity lets people "cop-out" of their responsibility by saying that as long as you believe jesus died for your sins you dont have to answer for them.

[playmaker88]

You're the one questioning the validity of books, which have no value or reference aside from the most vague of historical association. If you want clarity--post with such first. You are not at all what you are making yourself out to be and your ridiculous posts provide ample evidence of such.


Well this book you dismiss would seem to be pretty valid to an awful lot of people worldwide. They obviously don't see it as having just an historical association. This book as relevant to them today as it was over 1900 years ago.

Most people come on this site, ask questions, (granted not always worded like a Havard graduate) and hope to learn something from the answers. I don't always like the answers I get and sometimes feel that people are skirting around the issue, so I will disregard the answer and ask the same question again in a more forthright manner. This is not an attack. Ghostrider probably does things the same way. We are both from the same tiny little country afterall.

However the responses on this topic have genuinely been enlightening and a neutral observer has probably seen two sides of a heated debate and maybe learnt something. Attacking someone because they acknowledge a good response and calling them a liar (your favourite response to anything you disagree with) is puerile.

[mickydoolittle]

Well this book you dismiss would seem to be pretty valid to an awful lot of people worldwide. They obviously don't see it as having just an historical association. This book as relevant to them today as it was over 1900 years ago.
Try to focus, then try to apply that focus towards understanding the topic of the thread. It'll be hard at first but if you practice (what you should have done in school), you'll be able to follow along.

I dismiss that which has no application to a modern civilized society. The basis of what christ said was to love one another—that’s factual. Nothing more--it's the crapulent person who came along and altered/added to the original message to gain control over those who can't think for themselves--do you fit the latter description?

They only believe because they have been told it is the only relevant account and subsequently ostracized for not adhering strictly to the old ways. You should be bowing down before me or out capturing virgins for my personal pleasure to honor me for enlightening you.

Lies lies lies--what, you think you're GWB now? Come on, you're not trying hard enough here.


Most people come on this site, ask questions, (granted not always worded like a Havard graduate) and hope to learn something from the answers. I don't always like the answers I get and sometimes feel that people are skirting around the issue, so I will disregard the answer and ask the same question again in a more forthright manner. This is not an attack. Ghostrider probably does things the same way. We are both from the same tiny little country afterall.
No, you come here with a lack of intelligent debating foundations and then demand to be shown how an unprovable concept exists. That is actually surprising. I'm amazed at the level ofthe non-intelligent approach you both have displayed and used.

No, you don't think they are skirting around the issue. You are changing your story because of my calling you on the carpet. Tiny countries breed tiny ignorant minds.

Cease your insolent lies.

Try to focus more diligently.

You obviously have the ability to resist my meandering pandering iconoclastic horseshit, so start applying it to thinking about the topic at hand. You'll be happier if you do. I promise.


However the responses on this topic have genuinely been enlightening and a neutral observer has probably seen two sides of a heated debate and maybe learnt something. Attacking someone because they acknowledge a good response and calling them a liar (your favourite response to anything you disagree with) is puerile.

You should know that your attempts at re-writing history will not be tolerated. Congrats on being proven a liar.

You're a liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. :Blbl:

So there.

[LC Jeffries]

Actually christianity lets people "cop-out" of their responsibility by saying that as long as you believe jesus died for your sins you dont have to answer for them.


Wanna Bet? Have you ever been a church service where the Pastor says do what you want. After all your not resposable for murdering the girl or boy next door. Have you even been to a church that says, go drink, do drugs run people off the road, etc... your not responsable. If you have then I wonder what church you have attended.

[DontBeAfraid]

I attended a church once.... they told me jesus died for MY sins..... That is a foundation of the christian faith, it is how you get to heaven, what your pastor says or doesnt say is irrelevent(sp) when jesus has already excused you.

[LC Jeffries]

I attended a church once.... they told me jesus died for MY sins..... That is a foundation of the christian faith, it is how you get to heaven, what your pastor says or doesnt say is irrelevent(sp) when jesus has already excused you.

Yes that is the foundation of our faith. But it doesn't mean we are excused from sinful ideals. We are to follow Jesus as our sample in our life and even our death.

We need to be responsable for our actions. We can ask forgiveness yes, but we need to live our life as Children of the King.

[Edge]

You may want to re-think that last annalogy LC.

[mickydoolittle]

Dude, you are going to be SO embarrassed about that one day.... when you are standing before God in your judgement, remember what I said here and now.

Perhaps I can sum this up in a very simple fashion:

Assuming this alleged eternity exists, how could I or any other intelligent being be willing to follow the same path of alleged soul salvation and be forced into the same alleged eternity of servitude as you? Why the fuq would I rationally agree to share an infinte amount of time with the sanctimonious pricks that hold the all too common holier-than-thou beliefs as you? (the above quote of yours is a perfect example of such)

I can't stand spending 50 yrs on my planet with such kind, why would I voluntarily enter into an alleged eternity with such self-righteous bitches ?

[MacRasta]

Everybody knows that christianity is loosing "souls", young people are no more interested by it, or just a few are. But how come?....

I think science surpassed the human extinction, proving us that life wasn't created by the Almighty, but rather by an asteriod or comet impact(s), so God must be an asteroid. Now, I never read the Bible, or any affiliates, but as I understand, there is an Armageddon prediction in it (or in one of the affiliates).

Now what do I mean by science surpassing human extinction :
All those armageddon stories (and other :bs: ) from the Bible would be the truth to far more people if we weren't so advanced by now, let's say an big asteroid impact with an global extinction level, with few survivors hit us 500 years ago. We didn't know then what we do now, and it would be the wrath of GOD.

Maybe we surpassed this level because the Universe is expanding rapidly, and these type of events will occur less often, or maybe time is slowing down because of the expanding universe. I don't know. Maybe one day the future of the Universe will determine the future of our planet, of mankind.

Then we are god! :nudge:

Mac

[mickydoolittle]

Autryn,

care to attempt a perspective, translation or an explaination of Luke 14:26?

[playmaker88]

But I'll tell you this: I feel sorry for those who can't see God in their lives.
(and no, I'm NOT saying I feel superior to these folks... I just wish they could see things from my perspective). I don't need the Bible to tell me there is a God. I see Him in creation (sunsets, wind on grass, smiles on childrens faces, all over the place) and I am comforted. I'm truly sorry others can't.
==============================================

I think the majority of people who look for reasons (as to why there is NO God) do so because of two things:
1) they don't want to admit blame for anything and Christianity forces a person to look inward and take responsibility for themselves and their actions (or inaction) and
2) they don't want to change. Its easier to look for an out (eg, saying there is no God) and justify why you aren't willing to change. The alternative is to
admit to the need for change in your life (to walk toward God) therefore you have no excuse except to go ahead and change... and that takes work that most are unwilling to attempt.

So Autryn, do you see anything of God in the starving millions of Africa? In the bloodshed of terrorism? In the rough seas that take a lifeboat crew who were on a mission to rescue others? In a plane crash? In a life-wrecking tornado? In the death of a child hit by a speeding car? etc, etc, etc. Or is it just the wonderous things?

I have admitted blame for plenty and I take responsibility for myself and my actions. I have to, I have a young son. I don't need to believe in God to tell myself what is right or wrong, what I need to sacrifice, whom I need to apologise to, whom I need to show a bit more respect to, when I need to eat a little humble pie. I don't need God to keep myself on the straight and narrow and I don't need to believe in God to realise it's better to be a good person in this world. I don't do these things for a net pay-off of eternal life, I do them because it is the sensible way to conduct oneself.

Leaving the security of a career like the one I had in the armed forces and getting spliced and having a son is one hell of a change in my life. I didn't need God to find the courage to change and I won't ask for God's help when my current employment contract runs out either or the company I work for goes bust, or has to release people. I will get up off my backside and find new employment. CHANGE if necessary, learn something new if necessary, work damn hard to do so. I do not need God for any of these things. My family depends on it.

[Doomer]

So Autryn, do you see anything of God in the starving millions of Africa? In the bloodshed of terrorism? In the rough seas that take a lifeboat crew who were on a mission to rescue others? In a plane crash? In a life-wrecking tornado? In the death of a child hit by a speeding car? etc, etc, etc. Or is it just the wonderous things?

I have admitted blame for plenty and I take responsibility for myself and my actions. I have to, I have a young son. I don't need to believe in God to tell myself what is right or wrong, what I need to sacrifice, whom I need to apologise to, whom I need to show a bit more respect to, when I need to eat a little humble pie. I don't need God to keep myself on the straight and narrow and I don't need to believe in God to realise it's better to be a good person in this world. I don't do these things for a net pay-off of eternal life, I do them because it is the sensible way to conduct oneself.

Leaving the security of a career like the one I had in the armed forces and getting spliced and having a son is one hell of a change in my life. I didn't need God to find the courage to change and I won't ask for God's help when my current employment contract runs out either or the company I work for goes bust, or has to release people. I will get up off my backside and find new employment. CHANGE if necessary, learn something new if necessary, work damn hard to do so. I do not need God for any of these things. My family depends on it.

Well said playmaker88.

[autryn2]

26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my DISCIPLE. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my DISCIPLE.
........................................
33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my DISCIPLE.

================================================== ====

Looks pretty self explanatory. Christians are SUPPOSED to be like Christ, hense the name Christian... Question: what did Christ give up for us???
Answer: His life! Question: What did the 12 disciples give up to follow Christ??? Answer: everything! (10 of 12 were killed for their belief). Question: How many since Christ gave their lives for their belief in Him??? Answer: tens of thousands! Question: What should you love more than God??? Answer: Nothing (including your friends, family, and especially yourself).

Here's a little more for you to chew on (also an explanation of your question)....

From Matthew Chapter 10:
================================================== =
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
================================================
But before you think that Christ only accepts the "ultimate sacrifice".
check this out....

Also from Matthew Chapter 10:
================================================== =
41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

[Doomer]

26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my DISCIPLE. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my DISCIPLE.
........................................
33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my DISCIPLE.

================================================== ====

Looks pretty self explanatory. Christians are SUPPOSED to be like Christ, hense the name Christian... Question: what did Christ give up for us???
Answer: His life! Question: What did the 12 disciples give up to follow Christ??? Answer: everything! (10 of 12 were killed for their belief). Question: How many since Christ gave their lives for their belief in Him??? Answer: tens of thousands! Question: What should you love more than God??? Answer: Nothing (including your friends, family, and especially yourself).

Here's a little more for you to chew on (also an explanation of your question)....

From Matthew Chapter 10:
================================================== =
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
================================================
But before you think that Christ only accepts the "ultimate sacrifice".
check this out....

Also from Matthew Chapter 10:
================================================== =
41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

Man, that's some scary shit. I guess a 2 year old who loves Barney more than anything is condemed to hell. :(

[mickydoolittle]

26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my DISCIPLE. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my DISCIPLE.

Looks pretty self explanatory. Christians are SUPPOSED to be like Christ, hense the name Christian... Question: what did Christ give up for us???
Yes, proof positive that christianity has been altered to again cause those to reject their very existence.

I only asked for 14:26 which is why the majority of the rest of your nonsense was excluded from my response. You can't answer this question in a logical fashion.

Oh, you don't agree? Read below.

Ahh, self explanatory...hhhmmmm, well you post that christians are called such because they are to be more christ-like. Wrong, they are called christians because they are followers of christ. This is clearly one of the largest misconceptions perpetrated by the christian faith on such a devastating level to mankind. When will you ppl learn? When?

There's another MAJOR flaw with your quest to be christ-like--you're human. As such you and your kind are exercising one of the greatest efforts of futility known to mankind. This is largely due to to the alleged inherent divinity of christ from the seed of god impregnating mary. :vbroll: If you were not birthed of immaculate conception from a virgin, you are wasting your time being more christ-like, but hey, who am I to judge. I'm mickydoolittle--that's who. I didn't say boo. Now whatchoo gonna do? Additionally, you're creating your own hell on earth in the process. Good for you. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourself nonetheless.

Check.

Also, unless there is a translation error concerning the term 'hate', I see no reason to remove myself from those who have been nothing but good to me my entire life in my efforts to follow a figure with no relevance to today's culture--apart from showing 'love' to one another.

Mate.

I chew on nothing that is redundant in its inherent idiocy. This should in no way prevent you from feeling free to do so tho . . . :sleeping:

[Cuchulainn]

This was/not a Jewish name. The only other Jesus's come from Spain or spanish countries.

Any Rabi's about? :yeah:




I only asked for 14:26 which is why the majority of the rest of your nonsense was excluded from my response. You can't answer this question in a logical fashion.

Oh, you don't agree? Read below.

Ahh, self explanatory...hhhmmmm, well you post that christians are called such because they are to be more christ-like. Wrong, they are called christians because they are followers of christ. This is clearly one of the largest misconceptions perpetrated by the christian faith on such a devastating level to mankind. When will you ppl learn? When?

There's another MAJOR flaw with your quest to be christ-like--you're human. As such you and your kind are exercising one of the greatest efforts of futility known to mankind. This is largely due to to the alleged inherent divinity of christ from the seed of god impregnating mary. :vbroll: If you were not birthed of immaculate conception from a virgin, you are wasting your time being more christ-like, but hey, who am I to judge. I'm mickydoolittle--that's who. I didn't say boo. Now whatchoo gonna do? Additionally, you're creating your own hell on earth in the process. Good for you. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourself nonetheless.

Check.

Also, unless there is a translation error concerning the term 'hate', I see no reason to remove myself from those who have been nothing but good to me my entire life in my efforts to follow a figure with no relevance to today's culture--apart from showing 'love' to one another.

Mate.

I chew on nothing that is redundant in its inherent idiocy. This should in no way prevent you from feeling free to do so tho . . . :sleeping:

[mickydoolittle]

This was/not a Jewish name. The only other Jesus's come from Spain or spanish countries.
Any Rabi's about? :yeah:

You are mistaken twice over. It would be hebrew--not spanish <---and spanish was derived from latin.

Where you get your info is beyond the rational expectations of humanity in general.

And christ was indeed a jew.

[DarkAce]

Jesus was the translation of the original hebrew name....and Christ isn't part of his name at all. It's suppose to be the translated word of "anointed one" or something like that if I recall correctly.

[Defiant Noquisi]

This is interesting and damn nears reads like a Steeple Hill/Harlequin novel. Come to think of it, Harlequin, the biggest publisher of sex and violence filled trashy, histerical romance novels having a "Christian" novel side is just as good as an example of opposites as any. Cater to the masses. Maybe thats what the writer's of the "books" did?

PM88 makes an excellent expose' comparing differing biblical "facts" about ONE event and asks "why"? Thats not unreasonable considering this type of forum (aka "prove it") and as I read through all the responses, I was hoping for an honest, clear and concise answer. How many posts do we have here where vague questions are asked and alleged quotes given and nothing is posted for use as reference? At least every question being asked included some kind of easily found reference.

Mickey dear steps in and offers a sarcastic but reasonable answer and maybe unknowingly rescues those being asked to validate the differences. Nice dodge.

At least I now have a reasonable example for the figure of speech "as different as night and day".


A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Maybe that was to cater to night owls as well as "daywalkers". Im sure the coffee shop rag mags of that era mustve had graveyard shift reporters to cover all the abductions and such from Roman guards and midnight secret meetings by the righteous religious front.


B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10) Early day "Enquirer" types just HAD to be jumping all over themselves to get ANY relevant tidbit they could find from whomever they could get it from.


C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2) In addition, who was in and/or out of it? Wheres prez? A conspiracy of biblical proportion!


D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12) This sounds almost like multiple guess! Not enough coffee that early in the morning? Or perhaps it was just too dark to see clearly?

I dont doubt that it happened. What I do doubt is irrefutable proof as to the details surrounding it. This does prove that "gospel truth" is contradictory at best and is left up to anyone for themselves to decide to believe or not to believe.

My ancestors had it right all along. How can one believe these teachings when so many inconsitencies abound in a book were are told to believe as rock solid truth? How can we believe in something that even its own followers argue as to the details? Furthermore, isnt it VERY plain to see that Christian militia wing nuts misinterpret biblical scripture for their own self serving purposes just as Islamists do with their own?

Hey, if someone wants to bow down and unselfishly serve in a righteous and humble manner have at it. However, dont quote at me something that leaves me with more questions than answers while all the while telling me Im wrong and I'll burn in some fiery lake if I dont believe it. Remember, these are the same core beliefs that made the religious leaders of the day mix pagan beliefs and holidays with their own in order to stomp out independant religious beliefs and thinking.