So what's the RIGHT answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Well, considering all the ways people now misrepresent Christ, I think there's a very plausible reason that there are no other contemporary accounts of Christ. I suppose you'd accept proof of Jesus existing if there were "chronicles of the time" that said he was just a guy and didn't care about whether you sinned or worshipped God in truth. The Gospel accounts present a clear picture of Christ as the Son of God, God Himself, and the Savior of mankind. I think a God who cared that much about you and me and everyone else would make sure that the accounts we have all agree on who He was. We have four very detailed accounts of the life of Christ. I'm sure it would be nice to produce a gravesite or something, but we can't do that because of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

four very detailed and very different accounts of his life. Why not just one, consistent accurate account? Because it's just a story, that's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Well, considering all the ways people now misrepresent Christ, I think there's a very plausible reason that there are no other contemporary accounts of Christ. I suppose you'd accept proof of Jesus existing if there were "chronicles of the time" that said he was just a guy and didn't care about whether you sinned or worshipped God in truth. The Gospel accounts present a clear picture of Christ as the Son of God, God Himself, and the Savior of mankind. I think a God who cared that much about you and me and everyone else would make sure that the accounts we have all agree on who He was. We have four very detailed accounts of the life of Christ. I'm sure it would be nice to produce a gravesite or something, but we can't do that because of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

four very detailed and very different accounts of his life. Why not just one, consistent accurate account? Because it's just a story, that's why.

Because the disciplines of history and reporting were pretty different 2000 years ago, that's why. And the accounts aren't actually that different, in fact one theory suggests 3 of them have roots in a single Q gospel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

Josephus mention was much later and even after that there was stuff stuck in about Jesus being the son of god, all in a different style and obviously put in later. Tacitus didn't say enough to confirm it was Jesus he was talking about. Google it.

really, for someone who supposedly made such a big splash, there would be much more than these two, questionable accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Well, considering all the ways people now misrepresent Christ, I think there's a very plausible reason that there are no other contemporary accounts of Christ. I suppose you'd accept proof of Jesus existing if there were "chronicles of the time" that said he was just a guy and didn't care about whether you sinned or worshipped God in truth. The Gospel accounts present a clear picture of Christ as the Son of God, God Himself, and the Savior of mankind. I think a God who cared that much about you and me and everyone else would make sure that the accounts we have all agree on who He was. We have four very detailed accounts of the life of Christ. I'm sure it would be nice to produce a gravesite or something, but we can't do that because of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

four very detailed and very different accounts of his life. Why not just one, consistent accurate account? Because it's just a story, that's why.

Because the disciplines of history and reporting were pretty different 2000 years ago, that's why. And the accounts aren't actually that different, in fact one theory suggests 3 of them have roots in a single Q gospel.

right, so different, that we can't possibly use them to confirm anything more than that they were stories derived from each other - and from other ancient myths of resurrected gods. Google it. The 4th Gospel - John - is totally unlike the other three which tell more or less the same story of Jesus' life, with different bits and pieces left out. John is not about his life at all and was written much later. All very interesting from an historic point of view, but not at all convincing about the life of an actual person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

Josephus mention was much later and even after that there was stuff stuck in about Jesus being the son of god, all in a different style and obviously put in later. Tacitus didn't say enough to confirm it was Jesus he was talking about. Google it.

really, for someone who supposedly made such a big splash, there would be much more than these two, questionable accounts.

The fact that dozens then hundreds then thousands of people started to follow him within just a few decades suggests that, yes, he really did make a big and credible splash.

Or are you suggesting that some bored individual "invented" Jesus in order to piss off the Romans and managed to convince thousands of others to follow this chimera? Because that seems a lot less credible than the alternative, that he actually existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Well, considering all the ways people now misrepresent Christ, I think there's a very plausible reason that there are no other contemporary accounts of Christ. I suppose you'd accept proof of Jesus existing if there were "chronicles of the time" that said he was just a guy and didn't care about whether you sinned or worshipped God in truth. The Gospel accounts present a clear picture of Christ as the Son of God, God Himself, and the Savior of mankind. I think a God who cared that much about you and me and everyone else would make sure that the accounts we have all agree on who He was. We have four very detailed accounts of the life of Christ. I'm sure it would be nice to produce a gravesite or something, but we can't do that because of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

four very detailed and very different accounts of his life. Why not just one, consistent accurate account? Because it's just a story, that's why.

Because the disciplines of history and reporting were pretty different 2000 years ago, that's why. And the accounts aren't actually that different, in fact one theory suggests 3 of them have roots in a single Q gospel.

We have a pretty clear history of other events of that era. The Romans were pretty good at keeping track of things -- but not of Jesus. I'm sure churches are full of excuses about why that is so, but think about it -- they are protecting their brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

Josephus mention was much later and even after that there was stuff stuck in about Jesus being the son of god, all in a different style and obviously put in later. Tacitus didn't say enough to confirm it was Jesus he was talking about. Google it.

really, for someone who supposedly made such a big splash, there would be much more than these two, questionable accounts.

The fact that dozens then hundreds then thousands of people started to follow him within just a few decades suggests that, yes, he really did make a big and credible splash.

Or are you suggesting that some bored individual "invented" Jesus in order to piss off the Romans and managed to convince thousands of others to follow this chimera? Because that seems a lot less credible than the alternative, that he actually existed.

They didn't follow "him" -- they followed Paul, who never actually knew "him." I don't know whether Jesus existed or not, but there's no evidence that he was the son of god, and lots of evidence that he was patterned after other ancient "Son of God" figures that people would follow - hoping for everlasting life, just as people do today, even though today we're much more sophisticated that the illiterate, prescientific, original followers of Jesus. that promise of eternal life is still pretty potent.

[Anonymous]

Troll invasion....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Troll invasion....

Even in Bible says Paul didn't know Jesus - just had a vision, after his crucifixion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

Josephus mention was much later and even after that there was stuff stuck in about Jesus being the son of god, all in a different style and obviously put in later. Tacitus didn't say enough to confirm it was Jesus he was talking about. Google it.

really, for someone who supposedly made such a big splash, there would be much more than these two, questionable accounts.

The fact that dozens then hundreds then thousands of people started to follow him within just a few decades suggests that, yes, he really did make a big and credible splash.
.

Big? Yes. Credible? No. The same ("...dozens then hundreds then thousands of people started to follow him") could be said about a lot of cult leaders (Charles Mason, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc, etc). And not to belabor the point, but thousands of people also worshipped Greek gods too. Does that make them any more credible in your opinion?

Also, can we get some links posted to credible sources backing up what we're claiming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice how in pretty much every religion, God didn't have daughters, didn't make women prophets, or reveal prophecies to them. Hmmm...

I think Zeus had daughters, but no one believes in him anymore. I wonder when people stopped believing in the Greek gods. how did it happen? How long did it take?

It's fascinating to me how people look at Greek mythology, and easily dismiss it as BS, but somehow put more credibility in the Abrahamic mythologies. How is it any different??

Half-man, half-bird moon gods or whatever are not the same as real, actual people, about whom there is a historical record. Please try actually reading the Bible. You'll see that it is very specific in its dates and geography. To call it "mythology" is absurd and willfully ignorant.

A virgin birth to a god is *not* absurd? And not mythology? LOL.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 fully recount in great detail the exact lineage of Christ on both Mary's side and Joseph's side. The book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) foretells the virgin birth 800 years before the fact. Matthew 2 recounts the people of Bethlehem being fully aware of the prophecies of Christ's birth from the Scriptures (what is now the Old Testament). Isaiah 53, also hundreds of years in advance, clearly foretells the crucifixion. The Old Testament is filled with both prophecies and foreshadowings of Christ. You may choose not to believe who Christ is, but this is very much different from mythology.

So you're using the Bible to prove the Bible. Right.

[Anonymous]

Right -- it's easy to write a sequel when the back story is already written.

It also makes me sad that people are believing the explanations they're getting about the Bible -- that are simply trying to justify what's there to encourage people to believe.

Shame on the people who tell these stories to adults to want to believe and trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared again to many and then ascended into Heaven? Diety there is rather convincing to me.

The "fact"? Really - they can't even prove he existed! There are no mentions of him in the chronicles of the time, except as the Nazarene. There are more mentions of his brother than of him. Paul never even met him, and was disciplined by the church founded by the brother of the Nazarene. Are you kidding? Fact - I think not.

Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus. Google it.

Josephus mention was much later and even after that there was stuff stuck in about Jesus being the son of god, all in a different style and obviously put in later. Tacitus didn't say enough to confirm it was Jesus he was talking about. Google it.

really, for someone who supposedly made such a big splash, there would be much more than these two, questionable accounts.

The fact that dozens then hundreds then thousands of people started to follow him within just a few decades suggests that, yes, he really did make a big and credible splash.


Or are you suggesting that some bored individual "invented" Jesus in order to piss off the Romans and managed to convince thousands of others to follow this chimera? Because that seems a lot less credible than the alternative, that he actually existed.

This reasoning sounds like it comes right out of Sunday school class. Remember the point of sunday school is not to teach, it's to get you to believe. It's indoctrination, not education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Troll invasion....

Troll invasion = post that suggests the obvious truth that living things ultimately die and do not come back to life.

troll invasion = effort to discount an uncomfortable fact