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.
Or . . . it could be that each precursor was an attempt to instill in the consciousness of humanity the expectation that an Avatar WILL come and show us what God truly wants from us. The long-term effectiveness and impact of the Jesus narrative on society, Kings, etc. suggests its authenticity. "It is especially probative to me because its utterly primitive and barbaric interpretations of God should NEVER have lasted this long. Something is definitely influencing human cognition, Thrill, and your recognition of the absurdities, etc. is simply one of the reasons it should not have lasted this long.
You know, Mystic the bold is that old argument, "Satan tried to thwart Jesus' mission by going back in time and planting all these false dying-rising gods." I think they use the same argument with the dinosaurs, "Satan tricked mankind by burying all the dinosaur bones to make it look like the world was older than 6000 years." I just thought I'd throw that out there.
Mystic, you are one of the more sensible Christians in here so I can say this to you:
Why hasn't a single Christian honestly engaged me with the issues in the OP? It's all been insults and mocking and not a single "I have historic proof Jesus was real." I had to beg Michael Way to find something to object to and the best he could do was "the church fathers lied about Jesus from the beginning." So I pulled out some quotes from several of the church fathers and I'm sure you saw them but for the sake of those who haven't, here they are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Eusebius:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
Or Clement of Alexandria who apparently had his own definition of what truth should be:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
Or John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Or Tertullian writing that Pilate had converted to Christianity:
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
– Tertullian Apol. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35.
And I could go on and on but is it really necessary?
Do you still think the early church fathers were that honest that they would never tell a lie?
And I could have quoted more but that was a representative example of the attitude that prevailed in the early Church: "deceit is okay if it is used to persuade people to Christianity."
And after all that all Mike could muster was a pathetic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Without having looked at the context in which the statements of the church fathers you quoted were made I will not make any assumptions regarding them, and I will not take your word regarding their honesty or lack of it.
Can you believe it????? As if I am going to make up stuff that is easily verified and proven false!!!! And as I asked him incredulously, "What in hell kind of context do you need to interpret, "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ..."
So it seems obvious to me that Christians in here simply refuse to argue the issues I raise in the OP. If they have arguments as I said before let them raise the arguments and I will address them. For the little they have raised it has nearly all been Josephus' two discredited interpolated passages and Tacitus and Suetonius saying Chrestus (nothing of Jesus). That's it. That's all they raise outside the Bible.
Can you shed some light on this perplexing problem, Mystic when I have given Christians a perfect platform to respond to charges Jesus did not exist?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-11-2022 at 07:41 PM..
You know, Mystic the bold is that old argument, "Satan tried to thwart Jesus' mission by going back in time and planting all these false dying-rising gods." I think they use the same argument with the dinosaurs, "Satan tricked mankind by burying all the dinosaur bones to make it look like the world was older than 6000 years." I just thought I'd throw that out there.
Mystic, you are one of the more sensible Christians in here so I can say this to you:
Why hasn't a single Christian honestly engaged me with the issues in the OP? It's all been insults and mocking and not a single "I have historic proof Jesus was real." I had to beg Michael Way to find something to object to and the best he could do was "the church fathers lied about Jesus from the beginning." So I pulled out some quotes from several of the church fathers and I'm sure you saw them but for the sake of those who haven't, here they are:
And I could have quoted more but that was a representative example of the attitude that prevailed in the early Church: "deceit is okay if it is used to persuade people to Christianity."
And after all that all Mike could muster was a pathetic:
Can you believe it????? As if I am going to make up stuff that is easily verified and proven false!!!! And as I asked him incredulously, "What in hell kind of context do you need to interpret, "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ..."
So it seems obvious to mehe Christians in here simply refuse to argue the issues I raise in the OP. If they have arguments as I said before let them raise the arguments and I will address them. For the little they have raised it has nearly all been Josephus' two discredited interpolated passages and Tacitus and Suetonius saying Chrestus (nothing of Jesus). That's it. That's all they raise outside the Bible.
Can you shed some light on this perplexing problem, Mystic when I have given Christians a perfect platform to respond to charges Jesus did not exist?
The primary issue is the parsing and sorting of ancient writings of similar contemporaneity into those that were CHOSEN by men to support a religion and those that were not. You dismiss as fiction those that were chosen specifically to support a religion. That is really an illegitimate way to look at these ancient writings, Thrill.
The mindsets at the time were very different from our modern ones and their motives, purposes, and modes of expression in their recordings of what occurred were not similar at all to those historical tomes of more modern origin. When you proceed from such a biased and illegitimate position with regard to relatively contemporaneous writings as "evidence" you lose all credibility as an objective observer. Caesar was written of as a God, back then, Thrill!!
You know, Mystic the bold is that old argument, "Satan tried to thwart Jesus' mission by going back in time and planting all these false dying-rising gods." I think they use the same argument with the dinosaurs, "Satan tricked mankind by burying all the dinosaur bones to make it look like the world was older than 6000 years." I just thought I'd throw that out there.
Mystic, you are one of the more sensible Christians in here so I can say this to you:
Why hasn't a single Christian honestly engaged me with the issues in the OP? It's all been insults and mocking and not a single "I have historic proof Jesus was real." I had to beg Michael Way to find something to object to and the best he could do was "the church fathers lied about Jesus from the beginning."
So that everyone is clear, the Idea that the church fathers lied about Jesus is the OP's accusation. Not mine.
As for the OP. . . don't beg. It's not dignified. And I do think you make things up.
I'm sure that I can, but you just aren't worth the time.
Oh look. You are just playing Tweedledum to Thoreau's Tweedledee now (with the emphasis on the last syllable of Tweedledum, I don't mind saying). Why bother to come around if this is the best you can do?
To be an atheist requires a bigger leap of faith than to believe in Jesus.
No it does not, because our position is based on credible evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
In your case, you have convinced yourself that "proof" has a totally different meaning than in the dictionary.
No, it is you who has to invent your own facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
You have found places where evidence doesn't exist and choose to ignore evidence where it does.
No, it is you who has to ignore just how much Christian literature is fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
Of course the biggest evidence is in the Bible and the acts of the Apostles. The letters are contemporaneous. The gospels were written 20 to 60 years after the life of Jesus.
Yes, the letters that say Jesus was a divine being who's sacrifice was in a temple in heaven, not built by human hands. It is not until the later fictional gospels that we find a Jesus on earth.
Just because you've tried so hard to be blind to Jesus - and obviously succeeded - doesn't mean you're going to pull us down to that level, and dumb ourselves down as well.
Avoid sensing his presence: nothing will become obvious.
Make attempts to sense his presence: he will usually make himself obvious and known.
This is so vivid and clear OP, that missing it shows how strong your delusion is. You're blind to God, blind to others, and blind to yourself. Congratulations on stumbling around in broad daylight.
No one has tried so hard to be blind to Jesus, it is that we have looked at the evidence you need to ignore. It is you who is obviously blind to all the other gods that must exist, because other believers sense their gods.
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.
