Christians aren't interested in truth.

All they interested in doing is supporting the myth.

Without the myth they are lost.

Can't believe that a God can exist outside of the Mediterranean folklore.

They have already been brainwashed to believe that it's either the biblical picture of God, or there is no God.

So they cling to the Bible like as if it is God.

"I came not to judge the world"...

Right, Jesus came to bring salvation to the world. That's what the Gospels teach.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day"

Right, Jesus' second coming is the judgment. Which is why it is called "Judgment Day" by some.

All Christians know that Jesus came first to bring salvation to the world and will return to bring judgment.

I find it disappointing that you continue to insist that you studied Christianity, when you don't know simple Biblical facts like this.

"Well, the reality turns out to be much different. Their claim to have 200 scholars in the Seminar is grossly inflated: that figure includes anybody who in any way was involved in the Seminar’s activities, such as being on a mailing list. The real number of regular participants is only about 40. And what about the scholarly credentials of the members? Of the 74 listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies! Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college. According to Johnson, "The numbers alone suggest that any claim to represent ‘scholarship’ or the ‘academy’ is ludicrous.""

Really? Why don't you quote some for us.

"Fortunately, the main stream of New Testament scholarship has been moving in a much different direction than the left–wing fringe represented by the Jesus Seminar. Gone are the days when Jesus was treated like a figure in Greek and Roman mythology. Gone are the days when his miracles were dismissed as fairy tales based on stories of mythological heroes. Gone are the days when his empty tomb and resurrection appearances were written off as legends or hallucinations. Today it is widely agreed that the gospels are valuable historical sources for the life of Jesus and that the proper context for understanding the gospels is not mythology, but Palestinian Judaism. It is widely agreed that the historical Jesus stood and spoke in the place of God Himself, proclaimed the advent of the Kingdom of God, and carried out a ministry of miracle–working and exorcisms as signs of that Kingdom. I find it tremendously gratifying to see that the movement of New Testament scholarship as a whole is in the direction of confirming the traditional understanding of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. In particular, my own research concerning Jesus’ resurrection has convinced me more than ever that this was a historical event, verifiable by the evidence. The Christian can be confident that the historical foundations of his faith stand secure. You can bet your life on it."

oh so someone was crucified in a time when it was a regular accurence.
Well that proves jesus was not only Jesus crucified but was resurrected.

I do not say that people where not crucified but wheres the proof that Jesus was and of his resurrection.


The resurrection was being put up as a fact I still have not seen any facts at all of this accurence.

Your explanation doesn't hold water Spider.

Jesus said that he would not judge anyone who doesn't believe his words.

Yet you have Jesus coming back to do precisely that!

How does that resolve anything?

It doesn't.

Time doesn't excuse it.

If Jesus is going to judge people in the second coming then he's still judging people.

Period.

You're comment is meaningless.

You're just confirming that the scriptures are a contradition.

Having Jesus coming back at a later date to judge doesn't help.

This has nothing to do with my lack of understanding of the Bible.

This is totally a lack of understanding on your part of what constitutes a contradiction.

Having Jesus come back at a later time to judge people doesn't help your cause. It just verifies the contradiction.

you would be hard pressed to find a god that was not born of a virgin.
The Jesus story has been told many many times born of a virgin, betrayed, crusified, rose from the dead three days later.
It's a story that goes back long before Jesus.

Oh but Jesus was the real one. pfft

Seamonster,

Bush was claiming that it was common for Israeli women to be raped by Centurions. That's what we are talking about. Sorry about the confusion, but you could do a bit better in keeping up.

You already posted this...

Those who reject Jesus' words will be judged by Jesus' words. You quoted that yourself. It's just very disappointing.

It’s possible that it wasn’t a rape either and may have been consensual intercourse with a secret lover. I think more than likely it took place during the Hebrew uprising in Galilee.

oh well my bad then.

my statement still stands, but my appoligies for getting off topic.

Here's another quote by John Polkinghorne:

"Those theologians who are beginning to take the doctrine of creation very seriously should pay some attention to science's story." - John Polkinghorne

Clearly Polkinghorne does not take the doctrine of creation seriously.

So he would be considered to be an extreme heretic by many Christians and Christian organizations.

Polkinghorne is basically saying that he doesn't take the Old Testament Seriously.

So I often wonder about these people who call themselves "Christians" and what they might actually believe.

Somewhere along the way they must believe that the God of Abraham is somehow appeased by blood sacricrifies, because that is the only notion that gives the crucifixion meaning.

But when people claim that the don't take parts of the Old Testament seriously, then it becomes a question of just which parts they have decided to believe and which parts they have decided to reject.

I reject the very idea of a godhead who is appeased by blood sacrifices. As far as I'm concerend that came right out of the corridors of Greek Mythology.

Yet, that's the very principle upon which the crucifixion rests. It makes no sense to have Jesus being the sacrifical lamb of a God who is not appeased by blood sacrifices.

So the idea that God is appeased by blood sacrifices is paramount to giving meaning to the crucifixion.

This is truly one of the greatest reason why I reject this whole absurd story.

Of course, there are a myriad of other reasons as well, not the least of which is that I don't even feel that I am at odds with my creator.

How could I possibly be at odd with my creator and not know it?

That would be impossible!

My creator would need to be at odds with me, if I'm not even aware of it!


How could a God accuse me of being at odds with him, when in fact, it would necessarily need to be the other way around?

You can't be at odds with someone and not even KNOW IT!

That makes no sense.

Historians agree that any simularity between the life of Jesus and other "gods" is superficial at best. The comparison to Jesus and Hercules or Jesus and Horus have been completely refuted. In fact, the majority of the "similarities" were made up in an attempt to discredit Christianity. For instance: Isis wasn't a virgin, but many sites claim that she was so that they can insist that Horus was born of a virgin. Horus had three followers, Jesus had twelve disciples. The list goes on. So your statement is really from ignorance. You have been lied to and manipulated by unscrupulous people who do not value the truth.

Seriously? Really?

How else is a woman supposed to hold a baby? On top of her head? By one foot? Honestly, that is the most common way that women carry a baby. That's how men carry babies. That's how apes carry their babies. It's how beings with arms carry their babies.

I see, anyone who doesn't believe like you do is either a liar, has been lied to, is uneducated, and is, when it really hits you, stupid as well.
I wonder how you get to all these conclusions. Is it the Christian Fundamentalist sites you use to frequent?
Perhaps you should try to read something else for a change.
Alice in Wonderland is supposed to be a good book.

"The Christian myths were first related of Horus or Osiris, who was the embodiment of divine goodness, wisdom, truth and purity...This was the greatest hero that ever lived in the mind of man -- not in the flesh -- the only hero to whom the miracles were natural because he was not human."

"...I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4, King James Version. This passage may have an additional and completely different meaning from that usually assigned.

No, it isn't a matter of if someone believe me or not. It's a matter of what is the truth and what isn't. I didn't call anyone uneducated or stupid.

What I did say is that those "historians" who have claimed similarities between Jesus and Horus/Hercules are lying. There is no evidence to support such assertions.

Once again, you are playing the same game. You have no arguments. You have no proof. So you attack my character. It's really childish and unnecessary. Just be intellectually honest! You don't have to attack me so that you can continue to lie to yourself.