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.
I agree. It is not reasonable to compare them to modern writings and standards that generally apply to documents that are considered historic. And that is the problem...a problem that we atheist continually point out...although perhaps you said it better than we do. And yes, we cannot approximate the mindsets of those ancients. And that is another problem. We cannot understand the mysticism of the era, and as a result we cannot accept miracles that have never been repeated in more modern historic time.
I agree. It is not reasonable to compare them to modern writings and standards that generally apply to documents that are considered historic. And that is the problem...a problem that we atheist continually point out...although perhaps you said it better than we do. And yes, we cannot approximate the mindsets of those ancients. And that is another problem. We cannot understand the mysticism of the era, and as a result we cannot accept miracles that have never been repeated in more modern historic time.
What you folks have left is not sufficient to meet the standards of historical fact.
And I agree with Cowboy... this is well said, and gets to the crux of the problem. If current readers would take it for what it's worth, as an ancient text with ancient limitations, there would be fewer issues or debates... but too many want to view/read/preach it as something tantamount to videographic evidence, produced to current standards. But with the street cred that comes from surviving for 2-3000 years, as if that speaks to its validity.
I agree. It is not reasonable to compare them to modern writings and standards that generally apply to documents that are considered historic. And that is the problem...a problem that we atheist continually point out...although perhaps you said it better than we do. And yes, we cannot approximate the mindsets of those ancients. And that is another problem. We cannot understand the mysticism of the era, and as a result we cannot accept miracles that have never been repeated in more modern historic time.
What you folks have left is not sufficient to meet the standards of historical fact.
All you are saying is that you are more willing to accept Alexander existed than that Jesus existed. You reject the unbelievable about Alexander but accept his existence. You reject the unbelievable about Jesus but you reject His existence.
All you are saying is that you are more willing to accept Alexander existed than that Jesus existed. You reject the unbelievable about Alexander but accept his existence. You reject the unbelievable about Jesus but you reject His existence.
I think someone said we have coins that prove that Alexander the Great lived. Show us a coin that has Jesus' head on it.
I think someone said we have coins that prove that Alexander the Great lived. Show us a coin that has Jesus' head on it.
No one is claiming that an itinerant rabbi from a backwater of the Roman Empire should have the same coverage as a prominent Greek leader. But if one's existence is accepted with miraculous and unbelievable claims about him, the other should be also.
No one is claiming that an itinerant rabbi from a backwater of the Roman Empire should have the same coverage as a prominent Greek leader. But if one's existence is accepted with miraculous and unbelievable claims about him, the other should be also.
Mystic, your simplistic solution to this is profoundly...well, simplistic. Alexander is a historical figure. Not a single historian doubts he existed. Jesus' historicity as the son of God come to earth to die the sins of mankind is NOT history, it is theology. Jesus may have been a historical figure, we don't know. We assume he was but he most certainly was NOT the pre-existent son of God alive from eternity who created the universe and was prophesied in the Old Testament and all this other nonsense. He was an ordinary Jewish rebel who got himself crucified and died. End of story. Until he was seized upon by the early Christians and "resurrected" by being made into a god to placate the pagans the churchmen were trying to bring over to Christianity. The pagans wanted a man-god to worship like Horus and Mithras and Zalmoxis and Romulus so the Christian leaders relented and gave them one in order to keep them in the growing Christian religion.
If everything the Christians say about Jesus was really true then God the Father would have SEEN TO IT that authentic indisputable evidence was left behindthat would prove beyond a shadow of doubt he was resurrected and ascended. And we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. And there would be no logical reason for this board to even exist to discuss the issue.
The simple fact we are debating at this moment whether Jesus was real or not PROVES beyond a shadow of doubt Jesus was NOT the son of God come to earth to die for our sins.
One can only prove to himself that Jesus even lived, Christians have no varifiable proof that Jesus ever lived. The only proof we have is that a genius came around the time when Jesus was said to have lived, and I would also argure that Christianity began as a family affair between cousins and brothers and sisters.
What I can say for sure, is that if Jesus never lived, SOMEBODY WAS A SHEER GENIUS WHO KNEW THE BIBLE ABOVE ANYONE WHO EVER LIVED.
A genius was born who found a way to fulfill all the prophesies made to a virgin who came to bear a son of God.
A genius was born who knew the great secret that nobody else knew, he knew the temple was designed from human anatomy, he knew all the prophesies of that virgin temple becoming pregnant, and he knew the priesthood was set up to symbolize men who would bring their seed past a wall of separtion trying to get a temple pregnant.
Jesus came as the one true virgin who was completely submisive to the will of the father. Jesus came as the true temple, the true body that HOUSED the spirit of God as a virgin whose bridegroom is within her. We watched as the wall of separation was torn in two from top to bottum verifying that a consummation had taken place, and we watched the two witnesses, pour out of Jesus as legal binding witnesses lf a consummation as the blood and water on sheets have always testified, and this blood and water was taken from the body of Jesus as his two witneses who are the bride, the water and the blood was taken from the body of Jesus to create a bride from his own body that the two would become one. Jesus was then planted in the womb of the eath as a seed, as all men have been planted, but he was the firstfruit, the first son born of the Earth of many sons to follow.
Allthough we can't prove Jesus ever lived, we could at least present a case of a genius having come. This Genius proved himself and his authority by speaking in Parables that few people would ever understand, and it is his knowing of this secret language that we know for sure, A GENIUS HAD COME.
All you are saying is that you are more willing to accept Alexander existed than that Jesus existed. You reject the unbelievable about Alexander but accept his existence. You reject the unbelievable about Jesus but you reject His existence.
not really mystic. There is a ton more evidence of Alexander than Jesus. I would classify Jesus more like Atlantis. some ancient writes a story, like we use movies today, and it became something it really wasn't.
Four more people re-write the story, for distribution around the region, like distribution to movie theaters, and poof ... there it is ... and here we are!!!!!
One can only prove to himself that Jesus even lived, Christians have no varifiable proof that Jesus ever lived. The only proof we have is that a genius came around the time when Jesus was said to have lived, and I would also argure that Christianity began as a family affair between cousins and brothers and sisters.
What I can say for sure, is that if Jesus never lived, SOMEBODY WAS A SHEER GENIUS WHO KNEW THE BIBLE ABOVE ANYONE WHO EVER LIVED.
A genius was born who found a way to fulfill all the prophesies made to a virgin who came to bear a son of God.
A genius was born who knew the great secret that nobody else knew, he knew the temple was designed from human anatomy, he knew all the prophesies of that virgin temple becoming pregnant, and he knew the priesthood was set up to symbolize men who would bring their seed past a wall of separtion trying to get a temple pregnant.
Jesus came as the one true virgin who was completely submisive to the will of the father. Jesus came as the true temple, the true body that HOUSED the spirit of God as a virgin whose bridegroom is within her. We watched as the wall of separation was torn in two from top to bottum verifying that a consummation had taken place, and we watched the two witnesses, pour out of Jesus as legal binding witnesses lf a consummation as the blood and water on sheets have always testified, and this blood and water was taken from the body of Jesus as his two witneses who are the bride, the water and the blood was taken from the body of Jesus to create a bride from his own body that the two would become one. Jesus was then planted in the womb of the eath as a seed, as all men have been planted, but he was the firstfruit, the first son born of the Earth of many sons to follow.
Allthough we can't prove Jesus ever lived, we could at least present a case of a genius having come. This Genius proved himself and his authority by speaking in Parables that few people would ever understand, and it is his knowing of this secret language that we know for sure, A GENIUS HAD COME.
and somebody else claims "I am sure jesus lived" ... both are equally valid.
Then I am left evaluating the states of the people that need, deep down in their body, why they need these literal teachings to be real?
No one is claiming that an itinerant rabbi from a backwater of the Roman Empire should have the same coverage as a prominent Greek leader. But if one's existence is accepted with miraculous and unbelievable claims about him, the other should be also.
Who is it that accepts the miraculous and unbelievable claims for Alexander?
Let's see what we have if we strip away the miraculous and unbelievable claims from both of them...
1. An extraordinary military leader who conquered most of the known world before he was 30 years old and whose existence is confirmed by records, coins, statues, cities, his enemies and his battles.
2. An itinerant, rebel rabbi whose outspoken criticism of the establishment got him killed (allegedly) who's existence is confirmed by...nothing.
Which one do you think has most significance to our lives today?
Last edited by Rafius; 03-01-2019 at 04:49 AM..
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.
