Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
historical fact. Really, that's what I heard him say in his sermon yesterday when I accompanied my parents to church for Easter Sunday. Is this the kind of nonsense that pastors tell their congregations?
I've heard the opposite. Although there is probably at least some historical backing for Jesus. If not, this makes him effectively a person that a ton of people dreamed up.
That's actually weirder. People come up with miracles, but they don't as a general, fabricate an entire person.
As in, I can hallucinate and see Kim Aginary (punny name, sorry), but I and my 12 friends wouldn't. They could take shrooms and see miracles, but not a person. So what have they to gain? Not much, they'd get labeled as crazy.
On the other hand. What do Roman historians gain by suppressing the existence of a troublemaker? It's a great idea, why hasn't anyone thought of... oh wait.
historical fact. Really, that's what I heard him say in his sermon yesterday when I accompanied my parents to church for Easter Sunday. Is this the kind of nonsense that pastors tell their congregations?
There are lots of confident pronouncements from pulpits that get repeated as campfire stories, with no more justification than that they originated with a trusted authority-figure who abused that trust by spouting what people are willing to hear and believe.
I remember the gospels being repeatedly asserted to be eyewitness accounts when in actual fact they are anything but. As for "historians agree" ... no. Just no. That is like creationists saying that one of their "scientists" has a "scientific theory" for how the flood worked. In fact he is a mechanical engineer, not a scientist, and he has a hypothesis, not a theory. And his ideas are advanced only in creationist literature, and not even embraced by some creationists.
A closer look always reveals the lack of substantiation and generally the lack of honesty for such claims.
when a leader lies to keep its followers it is the time to leave.
Jesus as a real person is a waste of time to fight. It doesn't matter. It makes me look stupid when I even fight a toy story. Fighting a message of love and hope as taught by the bible is absolutely absurd. Yeah, I am going to fight that one too.
"miracles' and "magic" is the fight for me. There is no reason to push those as real. And to flat out lie about them and have others take it as real in 2015 is a look into the human species. It tells us something "real". "literal bible" true or false is a silly notion. Might as well say "csi" is Historically and literally a true/false cop story.
I regard to examining Creationist claims I recall one claim that fossils of all kinds were found jumbled together. Just what a Flood deposit should show. As I recall this traced back to a reference to an old excavation in a cave where some fossils or bones were found- it was that vague - and ending up with a Creationist argument from living fossils - specifically Ammonite/Nautilus. Followed up it turned out to a grotesquely overdrawn mix of ignorance and dishonesty plus intellectual laziness and of course the whiole justified by faith that it was all true anyway so anything that convinces is ok, true or not.
The other is the "eyewitness record" claim. I don't know how it stands now, but certainly, when I began researching the gospel accounts I found almost totally, that those who tried to reconstruct the 'Real' life of Jesus, took it for granted that what was reported about what he said and did was substantially accurate. It just needed some Interpretation. What still astounds me is that it is pretty evident when you start looking that they are very dubious as eyewitness accounts and I now incline to the belief that none of the sayings attributed to Jesus can be relied on as his words rather than words reflecting the views of Pauline Christianity and (where specific to one writer) the views of the gospel -writer.
historical fact. Really, that's what I heard him say in his sermon yesterday when I accompanied my parents to church for Easter Sunday. Is this the kind of nonsense that pastors tell their congregations?
Not mine. He said why HE believed despite how crazy resurrection sounds.
historical fact. Really, that's what I heard him say in his sermon yesterday when I accompanied my parents to church for Easter Sunday. Is this the kind of nonsense that pastors tell their congregations?
I think he has read the Case for Christ far too many times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
