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.

So I suppose if you read four accounts of an event in USA Today, the New York Times, The New York Post and Slate, you'd also assume that the event in question didn't happen and is just made up because the accounts all have their own style and details that are emphasized? You wouldn't notice the enormous similarities in each and enjoy four different narratives and feel you really had a good sense of what happened? The four Gospels are not at odds with one another, and put all together, they give a very detailed and full account of the life of Christ. But they were written by four different people. If you had just one account, you'd complain you didn't have more. And if you had four that were all alike, you'd complain that of course all the writers collaborated on them. Try reading all four Gospels and see if you can write a coherent response that these four accounts all paint different figures of Christ. I bet you won't be able to. Christ's life, ministry, rejection by the Jewish religious leaders, crucifixion and resurrection -- not to mention his proclamation that He is God -- are all consistently represented in each one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus may very well have existed, as a reformer in his time - just as scholars don't dispute that Martin Luther King existed. There have been many human reformers, teachers, leaders, etc throughout human history; that doesn't meany they had any divinity. Just regular mortals who perhaps challenged the status quo in their lifetime, and then died. And became mulch, like every other human being.

OK--so now you've retreated from the argument that there is no proof that Jesus existed to no proof that he was divine.

If you believe Jesus was divine you are Christian, if you don't, you are not. There are several billion people who are not Christian--you are now simply expressing their view that Jesus was not divine. Why did you bother then with the nonsense of questioning his historic existence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yes, and it's interesting that all the accounts we have of Christ describe Him as the Son of God. Why do so many accept that Christ existed, and then dispute the actual accounts we have of Him?

Do you think that Jesus is the only person who had accounts by others, claiming divinity?

Every religion and religious has their internal stories that they tell themselves, but somehow dismiss others as illegitimate.

That's why the Resurrection is so important.

And the Jesus resurrection myth is based on Greek & Egyptian myths, which is also important to know.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus may very well have existed, as a reformer in his time - just as scholars don't dispute that Martin Luther King existed. There have been many human reformers, teachers, leaders, etc throughout human history; that doesn't meany they had any divinity. Just regular mortals who perhaps challenged the status quo in their lifetime, and then died. And became mulch, like every other human being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yes, and it's interesting that all the accounts we have of Christ describe Him as the Son of God. Why do so many accept that Christ existed, and then dispute the actual accounts we have of Him?

Do you think that Jesus is the only person who had accounts by others, claiming divinity?

Every religion and religious has their internal stories that they tell themselves, but somehow dismiss others as illegitimate.

That's why the Resurrection is so important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yes, and it's interesting that all the accounts we have of Christ describe Him as the Son of God. Why do so many accept that Christ existed, and then dispute the actual accounts we have of Him?

Do you think that Jesus is the only person who had accounts by others, claiming divinity?

Every religion and religious has their internal stories that they tell themselves, but somehow dismiss others as illegitimate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yes, and it's interesting that all the accounts we have of Christ describe Him as the Son of God. Why do so many accept that Christ existed, and then dispute the actual accounts we have of Him?

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Anonymous wrote:Almost no scholar disputes that Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

No, I did not claim that I proved anything about the Bible being true by using the Bible (though I do believe the Bible is true). What I did say was that the Bible is written with such specificity, detail and historicity that it is something only the most willfully ignorant will attempt to dismiss as "mythology." You may not like what it says, and you may not believe what it says, but it says what it says in a vastly qualitatively different way than "mythology." That was my point. There is an extreme amount of information in it that can, and has been, verified as being historically true, so much so that many people believe its supernatural claims because it is reliable in so many other ways.

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

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.