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.
Unless thrillobyte sends me $100,000 by tomorrow, December 10 at 5pm I will determine said party to have been proven imaginary. It's completely and totally MY choice of test, and it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is not real.
For that matter, the same goes for any of a number of posters, of my choice. It's up to them to know if they're on the list, and whether or not they should have responded appropriately.
I'ts like preventing another person from getting bitten by a rattlesnake after you've been bitten.
The proof is there, it is whether you believe who he said he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
...but not the Jesus you want to have existed.
Look, I am not a fanatic as you should know (most of my time these days is arguing with Evangelicals and Fundies elsewhere) , but I do believe Jesus will save everyone eventually- even John Chau right now, regardless of his foolish mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
The problem is that most historians are not experts in this field, and only agree with the consensus. Many historians of this period also use criteria created by Christians, most are not used in other areas of history. Other historians have pointed out how this can lead to errors.
I would not rely on what most historians think.
I don't regard what historians say as gospel, no pun intended, but their job is to collectively gather evidence to prove events and/or certain people ever existed.
Some of it there is no evidence for one way or the other.
A lot of the OT is not historical and is storytelling to me.
Unless thrillobyte sends me $100,000 by tomorrow, December 10 at 5pm I will determine said party to have been proven imaginary. It's completely and totally MY choice of test, and it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is not real.
For that matter, the same goes for any of a number of posters, of my choice. It's up to them to know if they're on the list, and whether or not they should have responded appropriately.
"It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
Transponder didn't mean literally David's house were he lived, which would be news, if that is what you were thinking.
An Aramaic inscription (were they ultimately ruled by Egypt or Assyria or Babylon?), Tel Dan Stele, was found in some excavation in Tel Dan, Israel where a king details how he and his generals completed conquered Israel (supposedly the house of Omri mentioned in the other Stele made by king Mesha of Moab) and then moved on to wipe out Israel's neighbor, the "house of David, root and stem" during their most recent raid for tribute or something.
The Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone also possibly talks about similar mention of a line of David, if a French scholar's reconstruction of line 31 is correct.
"house of David" would be the Kingdom of Judah, which surely did exist. Just like the "house of Omri" would be the ancient Kingdom of Israel to the north of Judah.
That's it. I should have said 'Line of David' to avoid confusion. It suggests that a David (from which it was descended) really existed.
Unless thrillobyte sends me $100,000 by tomorrow, December 10 at 5pm I will determine said party to have been proven imaginary. It's completely and totally MY choice of test, and it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is not real.
For that matter, the same goes for any of a number of posters, of my choice. It's up to them to know if they're on the list, and whether or not they should have responded appropriately.
The proof is there, it is whether you believe who he said he was.
Look, I am not a fanatic as you should know (most of my time these days is arguing with Evangelicals and Fundies elsewhere) , but I do believe Jesus will save everyone eventually- even John Chau right now, regardless of his foolish mistake.
I don't regard what historians say as gospel, no pun intended, but their job is to collectively gather evidence to prove events and/or certain people ever existed.
Some of it there is no evidence for one way or the other.
A lot of the OT is not historical and is storytelling to me.
you are one step closer to knowing the real jesus. whatever that is.
I argue with "evangelical-esk" atheist (I am just an atheist that makes no choices based on your god) all the time that it doesn't matter that jesus existed or not at this point. literally true or literally false is irrelevant at this point.
we can tell what type of personality we are talking to by how the person describes the god of the bible. all evil, bad, killer or all loving, protecting, and savor type things. We then need to address the personality types that see these things, not the belief. what I mean by that is that we can choose the right words to help that person grow.
literal religion creationist, conspiracy theorist, ufo-ers probably all have the same type of personality expressing different beliefs. its not written anywhere, but its not written anywhere that I dont urinate in my drivers seat either.
How can we modify the belief if we don't address the personality type? for example an OCD-er. like a hoarder. just cleaning out the room and telling them don't do it again won't work. Me telling you that "dude died, woke up, and flew away didn't happen" and me screaming it you will not work.
so why do you believe a dude died, woke up, and flew away for our sins? literally that is?
Look, I am not a fanatic as you should know (most of my time these days is arguing with Evangelicals and Fundies elsewhere) , but I do believe Jesus will save everyone eventually- even John Chau right now, regardless of his foolish mistake.
Irrelevant to the point I was making which was to your claim that most historians accept that Jesus existed.The fact is that very few historians, other than a small number of theologians, accept that YOUR Jesus (Jesus The Christ of the New Testament) existed. Most historians accept the possibility or even the probability that there was a historical 'Jesus' but they do not accept that he was the divine son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh, that he performed any 'miracles or that he came back to life after execution and now lives with his dad in 'heaven'.
Satan and people's free will could easily be blamed by him for his setback to what he thought and deeply felt (obviously, even if selfishly) was Supreme Leader Holy/Jesus/Yahweh's purpose for him.
lol satan and free will---two of the biggest boogeymen invented by corrupt churchmen to take the heat off Jesus for his obvious failures to prove in any way he exists.
The evidence shows that the earliest records of Christianity that we have say that Christians thought that Jesus wasn't just "some man who did miracles and later we realized he was an eternal angel/demiurge in heaven" as is portraid in the 3 or less synoptic gospels, but they were similar to other religions which were all about Heaven, still none of the "earliest Christians" we have records of were definitely direct "worldly cult" members of Jesus' living movement.
What is this "evidence"? What are these "earliest records"? You use these loaded terms that really don't mean a thing except to try to fool the reader that legitimate evidence exists when it doesn't.
The only "evidence" Christians have are several thousand parchments dating from the 2nd century to the 15th century--nothing of substance before that except postcard size fragments with a few words on them dating from about 150 CE onward and absolutely NOTHING dating earlier than 150 CE. That's a full century and a quarter (125 years) after Jesus' crucifixion before the earliest anything surfaces that was later incorporated into official church versions of what Emperor Constantine wanted the gospels to say. Don't thank Jesus for your salvation, thank Constantine. He's the one who saved Christianity from total obscurity. Jesus was nowhere to be seen.
Unless thrillobyte sends me $100,000 by tomorrow, December 10 at 5pm I will determine said party to have been proven imaginary. It's completely and totally MY choice of test, and it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is not real.
For that matter, the same goes for any of a number of posters, of my choice. It's up to them to know if they're on the list, and whether or not they should have responded appropriately.
Why don't you just ask Jesus to give you $100,000. If he exists he'll say yes or no and not just in your mind. If he doesn't exist all you'll hear is silence which is what I'm betting will happen. There's your proof Jesus is imaginary.
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.
What are these "earliest records"?
There's your proof Jesus is imaginary.
