ARE you getting anything out of this so far as to your original questions Shortiemix?????

or are you more confused now than at the beginning???

Krisma

Ok...now that you ask. I would like to prove the bible is true. I wouldnt mind proving Jesus is the savior. Not just a Savior. Your savior. This will take time and patience. Are you alright with that? I keep going off on meaningless tangents. This will have to end. Will you allow me to state my case and prove it?

We can start with Psalm 22.

Let me know if we have an agreement.

touche tribo

Gladly.

I'm not a "religious" person. I consider myself to be a humanitarian.

I see Christianity as a cancern of the human spirit. However, you are knew here so let me explain that this includes Judaism and Islam. From my point of view all these religions arose from the very same Mediterranean mythologies. I see no difference between them on a fundamental level. They are one religion that has fallen into disarray.

Christianity has further fallen into Catholiscism and Protestantism, and of course Protestantism has fallen into many differnet sects (or demonimations) many of which do not agree with each other even remotely. For example there's no way that the Amish are in agreement with mainstream Protestantism.

Having said that. I see all of these religions as creating division and brotherly hate between men.

The religious tensions and wars in the Middle East are obviosus. The myth of the Battle of Armegeddon could easly become a "self-fullfilling" prophecy simply because so many people believe in the myth.

The Catholics and Protestants in Europe are often throwing stones at each other or killing each other.

Christains of different demoninations in the USA often have heated arguments with each other. If the whole world were to convert to Christianity tomorrow that would just be the beginning of the "real" Holy Wars.

From a humanitarian point of view these Mediterranean religions are a menace to humanity. They breed bigotry and religious prejudice. They are unhealthy and detrimental to peace and prosperity.

Supporting them is wrong. They have no merit. None of them.

They are all based on a jealous God who is obscessed with Worship Me, Me, Me!

They are based on egotism from the word go. The Christians tell the others that their Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and every tongue will confess and ever knee will bow to their King!

It's egotism gone mad!

Where's the love?

I don't see any love in these religions. It's all about denouncing non-believers as being sinful people who are rejecting God!

It even denounces science! Many harecore Christians are attempting to denounce the disocover of evolution and preach that we should be teaching Creationism in our schools.

The religion is archaic. It's stems from superstitions from the Dark Ages and beyond when poeople were obcessed with appeasing the gods via blood sacrifices. The whole crucifixion of Jesus is based on the superstition that blood can wash away sins. He represent a blood sacrifice to the God (but he was actually supposed to be the very God who demands blood sacrifices in the first place!).

Why would you want to believe in a religion that preaches that all men have fallen from the grace of their creator?

What's positive about that? That's an extremely negative thing to be teaching little children about the world and their creator. The very first thing we do is make them feel unworthy of God's love and now then have to earn back their worthiness by accepting that God's Son was brutally nailed to a pole for thier sake to pay for their sins!

Now they have to go to their creator on their knees wallowing in shame to beg for forgiveness for their pathetic unworthiness.

You can teach that crap to your childern if you like. Just keep that kind of demented preversion away from mine. Fortunately I never had any children so I don't need to worry about it. But just the same, from the viewpoint of humanity it's a disgustingly negative picture and there's no sane reason to even begin to believe that might be true.

On the contrary there are a myriad of reasons why it makes no reasonable sense at all. It's a totally unreasonable picture of God.

That's my assessment and I stand against it no differently than I would stand up against cancer of the body.

Christianity is cancer of the spirit. That's my assessment.

You would like to prove that the Bible is true?

Good luck with that.

Psalm 22 aint' gonna do it, I'm so sorry.

JB

Jeannie bean

The suffering of this servant leads to his exhaltation. All people to the ends of the earth, all who die, will kneel before him. Future generations will remember what he accomplished that suffering day. We are here discussing it even now.

The whole thing is written in the past tense as though it had already happened. Yet it is a future event at the time of writing. One thousand years future, and when Jesus died He highlighted it by quoting its first lines.

All those who see him mock him...David is the writer. What do you think he was writing about. Himself.

Yeah that’s not going to work here. I understand you are totally obsessed with these passages because you keep asking me and everyone else to read them. They don’t prove anything in my opinion. You feel they are foretelling his death because you want to believe that’s what it means because you want to think you are going to heaven. That’s fair enough and I realize people take comfort in this.

First off, I don’t think Jesus wanted to die, and he didn’t know it was going to happen just then. Judas sold his ass and he didn’t totally anticipate it, or which one would do it. Otherwise he would have left. He probably assumed one of them would or more than one and the Romans were going to find him one way or another. They would start with bribes and then threaten to cut peoples arms off and your gums will start flapping. It was a matter of time.

Also, I don’t think he rose. I think they might have not remembered exactly where he was buried and went to the wrong tomb. If not that, then the Romans discarded his body. I don’t think he rose from the grave. I’m not saying that to be mean, its just what I think is the more logical depiction of events or what might have transpired. It's certainly one possibility. Just as likely as people rising from the dead.

So the story is similar to a story written later in the New Testament.

That is only proof of creative plagiarisms, its not proof of anything else.

Secondly, what makes you believe anything written in the New Testament is true?

JB

Jeanniebean

What makes you belive the NT is false?

What tickles me is I think you are all argueing over a completely fictional story.

I don't think Jesus ever existed.

I think the New Testament is a fiction.

I think Christianity is a completely false religion created by Rome to annoy the hated Jews.

So I think you all are spinning your wheels. My agenda is to help in some small way to reveal the truth about the greatest lie ever told.


“The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.”

JB

See I won’t go quite that far. I totally think what you are saying is true but I also believe Jesus was a MAN, emphasis on man and he lived. I just don’t believe that he was anything other than human and basically a rabbi that got a lot of attention (have to give Abra credit for that one; he said that in a post).

I do think he was born human, Mary had sexual intercourse so there was no "virgin" birth and Jesus was the result of that union. I just have a feeling on that and I think there is probably some supportive evidence of his existence as a man. He was also a brilliant public speaker and able communicator. BUT, that’s it. To go on and on about it just seems silly in my opinion.

There sure were a lot of Josephs and Marys though.

((That is such a cute picture of you, I have to smile.))

About the NT: I have always suspected it was false. Research has uncovered a large group of people who share my views. I have my own theories and am doing other research.

If I get all the pieces I will write a book about it. It will be made into a movie in the year 1015.

The NT story itself is a rewritten myth of a savior god which bares many similarities of about 16 other crucified or killed saviors before the time of Jesus.

There is no evidence that the man was a real person. Of course most of the people in the NT are fictional characters.

I am an investigator. I have a little alarm in my head that goes off when I hear an untruth.

I consider that there is a reason for all information in the matrix. I look at it and I squeeze out what might be the truth and what might be lies and I look for agendas.

Actually I used to believe that myself. I do think that the story of Jesus was based around a real human being in part, but that character did not resemble the character of Jesus nor did the story that went with it.

It's like as if I wrote a story about you, and used part of your life and just created a completely new story and character around you and then sold it as truth.

Nope. Its all a fabrication. That is my current conclusion.

JB

Absolutely, this is in no way proof of anything other than that the people who wrote the New Testament were most likely quite aware of what was in the Old Testaments. That's all this proves.

Seriously Jessee, if you see things like this as 'proofs' you are being seriously naïve.

Jeanniebean believes that the New Testament was a purposeful forgery. She believe that the entire story of Jesus was fabricated from scratch. She may well have a point.

I don't go quite that far. I actually have my own theories about Jesus. I believe that he may have very well existed as a man. I personal feel that he had probably gone to the Far East and learned about Easter Mysticism, then returned to try to preach that philosophy to his home people, but in order to do that he had to try to work it in with what they already believed. He couldn't expect them to just toss out their old beliefs altogether.

Jesus as a very clever and wise man (if he was indeed real). He tried very hard to work the pantheistic view into the view of his culture without completely denying their original beliefs.

He stated that he and the father are one. That's Eastern Mysticism (or pantheism). All spiritual pantheists believe that we are indeed the spirit.

Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws. Yet he did. I cleverly denounced the stoning of sinner (which people were still doing because this is what the Old Testament had taught). Yet Jesus taught against that.

Jesus also denounced an-eye-for-an-eye in favor of turning the other cheek. Jesus denounced getting revenge in favor of teaching forgiveness. (Again this is the pantheistic view, not the Biblical view of the Old Testament).

Jesus even tried to use the Old Testament to show that all men are Gods. He said, "Ye are also Gods", and pointed out that this is in their Old Testament!

That's the pantheistic view! We are the spirit!

I think this may have been hard for Jesus. He may have even taken it too far. After all, he'd already be walking a tightrope trying to bring in a whole new philosophy to replace a picture of an old judgmental religion! Jesus taught not to judge!

Jesus was totally 100% diametric to what the Old Testament taught. It's crystal clear that if he lived at all, he was most certainly not the Son of the God of Abraham.

In fact, if you understand the pantheistic philosophies and imagine that every time Jesus spoke of the Son of man he was referring to all men, and not just himself, the pantheistic message rings out quite clearly.

As for his crucifixion, I don't believe that Jesus ever intended on that happening. I think he was leading a civil rights movement (not unlike Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) Jesus chandelled the Roman authority in the hopes that the masses would stand-up behind him. But they didn't. Instead they cowered away and even refuted him because they didn't want to get involved.

I believe that when Jesus was crucified and he yelled out, "Why has thou forsaken me", he was probably talking directly to the crowd asking them why they didn't stand behind him when he stood up to the Romans oppression.

That's assuming that he even said any such thing. It's also assuming that he actually lived, taught, and was in fact crucified.

Did he actually say those words or anything close during the crucifixion? Many physiologists have suggested that a man who was crucified in that way would not have the ability to speak at all in that predicament. At least now with any volume that could be heard by a crowd. Also, some people claim that he said, "It is Finished", that's not the same as "Why has thou forsaken me".


Finally, let's give it the best possible case. Jesus did live, teach and was crucified, and maybe yelled something out in his dying breath. When was that recorded and by whom?

Who were the authors of the Gospels? Men back in those days were not very literate. Most scribes actually worked in monasteries and churches. Any documents that were found would have been 'transcribed' and possibly even 'translated' from various vernaculars.

So what would that process have been like?

Well, if the scribe isn't precisely sure of what is written he takes it to a priest. What's the priest going to do with it? Probably convene with other clergy and try to determine what the author was actually trying to say.

Well, it would be perfectly natural for them to turn to the Old Testament for guidance. After all, they are under the impression that these documents are the words of the Messiah. So it would be perfectly within their scope of belief to look back at any prophecies that might have predicted what the Messiah was supposed to be up to.

Thus, just by "innocently" using the Old Testament as their Holy reference guide they would quite naturally interpret things in that light.

So I can even see how the religion could be tainted with bias even by totally innocent well-meaning priests who were just trying to make sure that things were 'transcribed correctly'. Without even realizing that they were slanting it to fit what they believed they molded the New Testament.

From my point of view it would be utterly naïve to not believe that it would have happened that way.

To believe that those kinds of 'prophecies' came true is truly naïve. It is much more likely that they were written in later to match what the people who were "caring for them" wanted to believe they meant.

There's no way that those kinds of things could stand up as any kind of 'proof' because all they really prove is that the authors of the New Testament most likely used the Old Testament as a guide. It's totally unimpressive as any kind of "proof".

And why are we here discussing it?

Because you're trying to sell it that's why.

That would be like a Hoover Vacuum Cleaner salesman coming to your door. You open the door and ask him who he is. He says, "I'm the Hoover Vacuum Cleaner Saleman".

Then you say, "But I'm not interested in buying a vacuum cleaner right now, thank you"

He replies, "Oh but you must be! You're talking about!"

Yeah right.

Now read Isaiah 53...

Spider you are point! Very wise indeed! Very few are able to grab this understanding...many are called few are chosen! Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, seek the narrow gate it leads to salvation, unfortunately very few will find it.

belief is a guess.

all belief. In and of itself is guesswork.

and the believers that promote their beliefs are guessing.

It is not about knowledge, and certainly not about universal knowledge.

But the Holy Spirit is the knowledge of God given man from God as proof of God.

Uniquely, Christianity has that distinction in that the spirit in man is not the Spirit of God and that to know God requires knowing the Spirit of God.

That is not inherent according to jesus.

It is believed to be an inherent distinction outside of Jesus' teachings.

Only the born again christian knows the truth.

Did anyone see a spider in here?

Have you ever really given this idea much thought at all?

This suggests that the creator the universe is a gambler. He creates souls knowing full well that only very few of them will make it, and the rest will fall to eternal agony.

That's an extremely efficient creator.

Compare that with the pantheistic view of God where eveyone comes out a winner?

Why should we believe that God is a loser, when pictures of a winning God exist?

If you didn't know who your father was, and someone came to you with two different possiblities. One was a picture of an angry judgmental man who loses most of his children to criminal behavior. The other was a picture of a very wise and loving man who never loses a single solitary child,...

Which picture would you choose to believe is your father?

The choice is yours. You can believe that God is either of these two pictures.

Do you think that if you choose the better picture and the angry judgmental father turns out to be true you might get a spanking for having guessed wrong?

Why would you choose the picture of the lesser father?