If Jesus Was Real Why Is The Secular Evidence So Flimsy?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Perhaps I would comprehend your posts better if you could elaborate on your points instead of just saying "Nope you're wrong!".

Do your cop out tactics never end?

When I make long replies you simply skip them entirely and run away. Claiming "lack of time" and that you are being "ganged" up on.

When I make a short post you claim I am not being elaborate enough.

You really will say ANYTHING to get out of making an honest reply to an honest post won't you?

Fact is I wrote one thing here just now and you claimed I said something entirely different. The sentence was perfectly concise and clear. You simply failed.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Natural beauty is proof positive that we have a Creator.

That is a blatant assertion and you have not backed it up in any way except to repeat it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

There is no freaking way random forces of nature created this world of unity, beautiful color and creativity.

Firstly saying there is no way it could have happened is a positive assertion. So substantiate it please.

Secondly things like evolution are not entirely "Random". They merely have a "random" element. So no one is actually claiming that "random forces of nature" created these things.

Thirdly you appear to be acting like "beauty" is something that exists in and of itself. This too you need to substantiate because it is just as likely "beauty" is just an internal human effect to our observation of the world. That is to say..... beauty in and of itself does not exist..... but our subjective reaction to the world is what we CALL "beauty".

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

He denies this but does not explain why so the only explanation is that he doesn't believe our world has natural beauty.

Misrepresenting me once could be construed as an error. Continuing to do so however is wantonly dishonest.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by domenic

The Romans demanded people go to the city they were they were born for the census. After Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had other children…James the brother of Jesus was one of them. Jesus did not marry, or have children. if he had sex, it is not recorded.

Originally Posted by Mr.Gomar Holnyuk

I sure would like to know what your sources are for the above info.

A)So the Romans "demanded" women who are about to give birth travel off on a donkey in December back to their birth place, ok. what about the sick, the dying, the blind, the cripples? And what would happen if Mary had waited after birth a few days? 10 lashes, no bread for you?
B)James. A name I keep hearing here and there, but no actual proof.C)Jesus did not marry by 32, yet he was a rabbi; strange. please explain.

Dominic has in mind the paper found in Egypt saying that everyone had to go to their home city to register for tax. Luke knew this and supposed that it was the reason that Joseph went back to his own city (Bethlehem) to register for the First Tax -census. The one in ^AD after the Roman took over Judea as a province.

However, as you say, it makes no sense that he would drag Mary along, and I doubt that Luke even knew that quite a journey was involved. He certainly didn't realize that the ancestral city was irrelevant to Joseph's own city which is where he lived and worked - which is what that Egyptian -roman period paper is talking about - not some ancestral city miles and miles away. Not did he put two and two together: he knew that Galilee was ruled by Antipas, but it didn't occur to him that this meant the tax didn't apply to Galilee. Add to that that Bethlehem seems to have been uninhabited at the time and Matthew of course sets the nativity a decade earlier, and the census -story doesn't work.

'There are many other things that Jesus did' as John says. Maybe having sex and getting married was one of them. I'd suggests that the importance of Mary Magdalene and the baseless smearing of her reputation by early Christianity suggests that she and jesus were not married, they ought to have been.

In fact, Holnyuk, I think James was for real a brother of Jesus and the eldest one, too. I am inclined to credit Paul as a real person and his interaction with James I also credit. I take your point that as a rabbi he should have married, which was pretty much expected for any Jewish male over 20.

That is to put much of what dominic posts into perspective. Bottom line perhaps is neither to dimiss too easily what we find in the gospels, but neither is it wise to take what it contains on trust.