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.
Never have I met Jesus face to face...but I know people that have!! Figment of their imagination? Not from what I could tell! One's a nun...she did not make that up!
That was not meant to be proof...it just satisfies me..who does not have a scientific left brain propensity.
*This making so many spaces as a 'style of posting' makes me nuts with all the scrolling, thrill!
I know, I know, it's my problem. But I'm finally tellin' ya.
With all due respect, Miss Hepburn, how do you know her experience wasn't a hallucination? Just because she tells you she saw Jesus why do you believe her so readily? People hallucinate Jesus all the time in the same way Indians hallucinate Hindu gods and Buddhists hallucinate Buddha. It's a culture thing. Indians don't hallucinate Jesus, why is that. Perhaps your nun friend takes this, "I am married to Jesus" thing a little too seriously.
Edit: you know, Miss Hepburn I didn't understand your scrolling comment until I reread it. Yes, I agree this website on my computer automatically creates about four spaces in between paragraphs. I always have to go back and correct but last night I was in a hurry to get to bed.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-27-2022 at 09:20 AM..
With all due respect, Miss Hepburn, how do you know her experience wasn't a hallucination? Just because she tells you she saw Jesus why do you believe her so readily? People hallucinate Jesus all the time in the same way Indians hallucinate Hindu gods and Buddhists hallucinate Buddha. It's a culture thing. Indians don't hallucinate Jesus, why is that. Perhaps your nun friend takes this, "I am married to Jesus" thing a little too seriously.
Edit: you know, Miss Hepburn I didn't understand your scrolling comment until I reread it. Yes, I agree this website on my computer automatically creates about four spaces in between paragraphs. I always have to go back and correct but last night I was in a hurry to get to bed.
Go read this thread and see how to fix the double line spacing:
Well, you know, MQ philosophers argue that this life is just an illusion so in the strictest sense nothing is really provable or unprovable--a person's love, the sun coming up tomorrow, even George Washington's existence--none of it is "provable".
But far be it from me to argue with a mod--especially one as charming and intelligent as yourself, and so I will politely concede the point.
I'll just add this in postscript:
There is a book by an attorney named David Limbaugh (yes, brother of the late Rush) who wrote a book, "Jesus on Trial: A lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel". I always go to the 1-star reviews first when getting a sense of these kinds of books (like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ") and sure enough--99.99% of this attorney's "proof" is from the Bible. Which pretty much proves my point: take away the Bible and there isn't a single factual thing a Christian can dig up to support the existence of Jesus Christ. All they have is what EscalaMike says, "The existence of Christianity today today is proof of Jesus". Well, that's proof in the same way the existence of a much older religion, Hinduism (which has been around 200 years longer than Christianity) is proof of the Hindu god, Vishnu. Would you agree?
Flattery will get you everywhere. Hehehe.
I don't think there is proof of either Jesus OR Vishnu, but I can't say there isn't, either. The "Take away the Bible" statement is sort of a trick, because of course the Bible is the written "evidence" of Jesus. There's no rule that says ancient writings have to be able to be corroborated with other writings. There are other historical and/or mythological figures only known via one ancient source.
But in fact, there were other sources. The Gospel of Thomas is not included in the Bible, and in fact when the Portuguese Catholics stumbled upon the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, India, in the fifteenth century and learned to their horror that these Christians never heard of Rome and only had a book of Jesus's sayings and not their Holy Scriptures, they were quite put out and gave those non-conforming Christians what-for. That doesn't mean the Gospel of Thomas was evidence, either, but it certainly was writing about Jesus outside of the Bible that the Mar Thoma Christians took seriously enough to build a religion around, even if they did decorate their crosses with elephants. Interestingly, they also said part of their liturgy in Syriac, a language not native to India but related to the Aramaic Jesus spoke.
To the believers, the Bible IS the evidence, and I am a little uncertain as to what you hoped to accomplish with this thread other than to get other non-believers to nod and smile along with you. Did you think someone who believes in the Jesus of the gospels would change their mind because of what you wrote?
Underwhelming, almost all based on later, gospel fiction (all rewrites of Mark), invented people, and false arguments such as women being unreliable witnesses.
As for Paul, he says the appearances to the other apostles were like his. Even the Pentecostal appearance in Acts is not a physical appearance of Jesus.
After His physical death, no other kind of appearance was possible than spiritual. He has a spiritual body as we all will have as well. As quanta, it cannot be perceived directly by our senses at the macro level only by our consciousness which exists at the level of quanta. This is why they are considered "visions" or "hallucinations."
I don't think there is proof of either Jesus OR Vishnu, but I can't say there isn't, either. The "Take away the Bible" statement is sort of a trick, because of course the Bible is the written "evidence" of Jesus. There's no rule that says ancient writings have to be able to be corroborated with other writings. There are other historical and/or mythological figures only known via one ancient source.
But in fact, there were other sources. The Gospel of Thomas is not included in the Bible, and in fact when the Portuguese Catholics stumbled upon the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, India, in the fifteenth century and learned to their horror that these Christians never heard of Rome and only had a book of Jesus's sayings and not their Holy Scriptures, they were quite put out and gave those non-conforming Christians what-for. That doesn't mean the Gospel of Thomas was evidence, either, but it certainly was writing about Jesus outside of the Bible that the Mar Thoma Christians took seriously enough to build a religion around, even if they did decorate their crosses with elephants. Interestingly, they also said part of their liturgy in Syriac, a language not native to India but related to the Aramaic Jesus spoke.
To the believers, the Bible IS the evidence, and I am a little uncertain as to what you hoped to accomplish with this thread other than to get other non-believers to nod and smile along with you. Did you think someone who believes in the Jesus of the gospels would change their mind because of what you wrote?
Don't forget also that tradition in India has the apostle Thomas himself being the one who introduced Jesus and Christianity to them. Tradition often has a basis in fact. Why would Thomas have undertook his mission to India if he didn't personally believe (being an eyewitness of Jesus) that Jesus was who he claimed to be and that he had seen the risen Jesus? And why would the tradition have arisen that Thomas was the one who brought the Gospel to India if indeed he hadn't
As for the Bible itself, as you know, the Bible is not one book but a collection, with reference to the NT, of at times independent writings. Paul's letters are independent of the Gospels, and many scholars regard the Gospel of John to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. Multiple independent sources are regarded by historians as evidence of historical reliability. This argument made by some skeptics that the Bible can't be considered as historical is nonsense. While the Gospels are theological treatises and contain legendary material they do also contain actual history as well and this is recognized by actual historians who do Jesus studies.
Don't forget also that tradition in India has the apostle Thomas himself being the one who introduced Jesus and Christianity to them. Tradition often has a basis in fact. Why would Thomas have undertook his mission to India if he didn't personally believe (being an eyewitness of Jesus) that Jesus was who he claimed to be and that he had seen the risen Jesus? And why would the tradition have arisen that Thomas was the one who brought the Gospel to India if indeed he hadn't
As for the Bible itself, as you know, the Bible is not one book but a collection, with reference to the NT, of at times independent writings. Paul's letters are independent of the Gospels, and many scholars regard the Gospel of John to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. Multiple independent sources are regarded by historians as evidence of historical reliability. This argument made by some skeptics that the Bible can't be considered as historical is nonsense. While the Gospels are theological treatises and contain legendary material they do also contain actual history as well and this is recognized by actual historians who do Jesus studies.
Well YEAH, I didn't "forget" that. That's who the Mar Thoma (St.Thomas) Christians ARE--a sect who believes Thomas brought Christianity to them along with the Gospel of Thomas, which was a book of Jesus's sayings, and then that he was martyred in India.
As a person who find language fascinating, I find the strongest evidence for this to be the fact that these people in India were using Syriac in their church. It was a common language of Christianity in the Middle East before the Roman Church rose up and started spreading the word in Latin.
By the way, the.church changed with the influences of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but it still exists. There is now a large Mar Thoma church in the Toronto area. And I worked with a Mar Thoma Indian Christian in Brooklyn!
Well YEAH, I didn't "forget" that. That's who the Mar Thoma (St.Thomas) Christians ARE--a sect who believes Thomas brought Christianity to them along with the Gospel of Thomas, which was a book of Jesus's sayings, and then that he was martyred in India.
As a person who find language fascinating, I find the strongest evidence for this to be the fact that these people in India were using Syriac in their church. It was a common language of Christianity in the Middle East before the Roman Church rose up and started spreading the word in Latin.
By the way, the.church changed with the influences of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but it still exists. There is now a large Mar Thoma church in the Toronto area. And I worked with a Mar Thoma Indian Christian in Brooklyn!
It sounds a bit like the "Buddha footprints" found around Thailand and other places in Southeast Asia. There is NO evidence Buddha was ever in those places.
I don't think there is proof of either Jesus OR Vishnu, but I can't say there isn't, either. The "Take away the Bible" statement is sort of a trick, because of course the Bible is the written "evidence" of Jesus. There's no rule that says ancient writings have to be able to be corroborated with other writings. There are other historical and/or mythological figures only known via one ancient source.
But in fact, there were other sources. The Gospel of Thomas is not included in the Bible, and in fact when the Portuguese Catholics stumbled upon the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, India, in the fifteenth century and learned to their horror that these Christians never heard of Rome and only had a book of Jesus's sayings and not their Holy Scriptures, they were quite put out and gave those non-conforming Christians what-for. That doesn't mean the Gospel of Thomas was evidence, either, but it certainly was writing about Jesus outside of the Bible that the Mar Thoma Christians took seriously enough to build a religion around, even if they did decorate their crosses with elephants. Interestingly, they also said part of their liturgy in Syriac, a language not native to India but related to the Aramaic Jesus spoke.
To the believers, the Bible IS the evidence, and I am a little uncertain as to what you hoped to accomplish with this thread other than to get other non-believers to nod and smile along with you. Did you think someone who believes in the Jesus of the gospels would change their mind because of what you wrote?
Quote:
I am a little uncertain as to what you hoped to accomplish with this thread
Ah, now there's a legitimate question. What prompted the thread itself was me getting sick and tired of all the propaganda Christians throw around to prove Jesus was real, like "There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar" and "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus" which I knew both were as false as a claim from them that the sun rises from the West.
So I set out to demonstrate how the Christian leaders from the beginning used falsehoods to promote their faith and weren't shy about using lies to push their faith as I showed here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Let's have a look at some of the attitudes of the early church fathers about falsehoods starting with Paul:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my falsehoods unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.
Or 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.
See that remark from John Chrysostom--where he asks, "Do you see the advantage of deceit?"
Chrysostom might just as well be asking, "Do you see how useful deceit and untruths and lies can be in persuading otherwise unreceptive people to accept as truthful our fables about the Jesus Christ?"
I mean that is just about what he is saying there, it's plain as day. And bald-faced dishonesty like that just makes me cringe, and this dishonesty within the Christian ranks goes on even today and we see it in here at times as a defense to the claim that the Jesus of the Bible was not real. (notice I didn't say a historical Jesus, who may have been a real ordinary person)
So I suppose I was trying to point out to people who come in and read these threads that they should beware of untruths about the gospel Jesus being passed off as facts by the Christians in here when in truth they aren't facts at all.
And it's nice that the mods in here ARE more knowledgeable and tolerant than most of the forums out there who will ban you at the slightest question like, "I'm not sure if Jesus was real." BAM! "Sorry Thrillobyte, you don't have permission to access this forum anymore." Thanks much for being as tolerant and understanding and gracious and kind as you are, MQ.
Well YEAH, I didn't "forget" that. That's who the Mar Thoma (St.Thomas) Christians ARE--a sect who believes Thomas brought Christianity to them along with the Gospel of Thomas, which was a book of Jesus's sayings, and then that he was martyred in India.
As a person who find language fascinating, I find the strongest evidence for this to be the fact that these people in India were using Syriac in their church. It was a common language of Christianity in the Middle East before the Roman Church rose up and started spreading the word in Latin.
By the way, the.church changed with the influences of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but it still exists. There is now a large Mar Thoma church in the Toronto area. And I worked with a Mar Thoma Indian Christian in Brooklyn!
Sorry, MQ. I probably could have phrased that differently than I did. You make a good point about the use of Syriac by these Indian Christians.
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.
