Peter Pan, Cowboy asked me to explain his "evidence."
I explained it as "lies."

That's good enough for me.

After all, that is what he did to my evidence. So I was just doing to him what he seems to feel is the thing to do.

It's been said that there are no "non-Biblical" sources of Yashua's existence.

If so, do those detractors discount the gnostic writings and the writings of the Jews?

If you have any gnostic writings or writings of the Jews that reference Jesus or Yashua's or whatever name you are using, what are they? I've never heard of them, but I will investigate.

BTW: Here is some of my inner scripture:


Jeaniebean 05:24 God has no name.

*edit*

I just wanted to add, my beliefs are mine alone. I have no problem directing those who whish to know, but please don't hang on my every word. You relationship with your God is your own...

Thank you, I feel the same.

Peter Pan wrote:

My favorite quote from his sight is this:

"On this Website you will find many documents. They cover all essential aspects of religion. Do not accept or believe any of it, without carefully testing & examining its truth. Believing what someone else tells you, simply because you think they have some authority, is one of the silliest things you can do."


I agree with this 100%, if you want to get technical, the "Bible" directs us as such...

That is rather interesting isn't it?

If the are places within the biblical cannon that direct us to exam the truth of everything that is presented to us, then it could hardly be blaspheme to question the validity of any of the books in the biblical cannon.

Moreover if a person finds them to be unacceptable then by at least some of the authors of that cannon we should reject those parts that we find unacceptable.

If that's the case, then that's all I have ever done. Precisely what at least one of the authors of the biblical cannon of stories had suggested.

My conclusions that the Old Testament is most likely mostly fables, and that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist are indeed conclusions that have been the work of much examination and testing of the truths of ideas that have been presented to me.

So evidently I'm "obeying" the "word of God", or at least part of what he has directed us to do.

A God who has directed me to do this could hardly be peeved about it later. It was supposedly his very own directive.

I totally agree with you Peter.

AS is the book oft quoted...

A 'doctrine of men'.

Translated to the benefit of men.

Inked upon paprus by men.

Bound in leather by men.

God writes upon the heart not the paper.

God writes with glory not pen.

You say you agree with me, but your words contradict that statement....

I've told you before that for the most part, I agree with what you've said.

The problem here is that you claim to know what "Christians" believe, but not from scriptue, but from the "traditions of men".

I will renounce all of that "hearsay" (your own words), but I do not renounce the spiritual truths that are conveyed....


Stop supporting the lie, and realise that what you call "Chritianity" is actually the "doctrines of men"...

The problem here is that you claim to know what "Christians" believe, but not from scriptue, but from the "traditions of men".

I was wondering if this might be a great place to have an open discussion about God. ..<clip>.. Atheists, what say you?

Wots to discuss????

I'm not supporting anything.

The very term "Christianity" has the term "Christ" right in it. It doesn't take much to recognize from that the the "Christians" are holding up the biblical notion that Jesus was the "only begotten son of God".

In fact, you say,


Excuse me?

The scriptures themselves make these specific decrees:


John.1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John.3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John.4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.


Where do you think the "Christians" get these ideas? Do you think they just make them up from thin air?

It's all through the scriptures.


Matthew 16

[13] When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
[14] And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
[15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[20] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


I could quote a lot more scripture if you like, but I feel that what I've already quoted should be more than sufficient to show two facts.

1. The Bible claims that Jesus was "The Christ".
2. Within the scriptures, "The Christ" is clearly being used to mean, "The unique son of the living God".

Where do you think the "Christians" come up with this stuff?

And what did you think the term "Christ" meant with respect to the biblical stories?

Sure, you can probably find alternative abstract definitions for the term "christ" from other sources, but clearly within the context of the biblical scriptures the term "Christ" means, "Son of God", and not in a general pantheistic way. Because that would not be special since everyone would be the "Son of God" in that sense.

So clearly the scriptures support the idea that Jesus was "The Christ", and the very term "Christianity" means a belief system where the believers do indeed believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

That's what it means to believe in "Christianity".

If you don't believe that Jesus was "The Christ" (in this biblical sense of being the only begotten son of the living God), then you're misusing the label "Christianity".

It's that simple.

If you're trying to use the term "Christian" to simply mean, "Follower of Jesus" when you don't truly accept that Jesus was "The Christ", then you're misusing the term.

So if you believe that I'm supporting some sort of lie by believing that "Christianity" represents that Jesus was indeed "The Christ" and that "The Christ" means "The only begotten son of God", then you're mistaken because that's precisely what "Christianity" represents, and what the biblical scriptures are attempting to claim.

They don't call it "Christianity" for nothing.

It a belief that Jesus was "The Christ".

That's precisely what it is.

I didn't make that up, and it's not a lie.

I'm not supporting any lie. I'm just telling it like it is.

I don't believe the claims that are being made in the Bible about Jesus being "The Christ". And this is why I cannot call myself a "Christian".

I could live a life that was precisely modeled after Jesus and I still couldn't call myself a "Christian" because I don't believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

It's that simple.

Peter Pan wrote:

There you go again... Telling Christians what they must believe.


Are you trying to replace all the other "paper popes" now???

Isn't a Christian a person who celebrates Christmas and puts up a tree every year and waits for Santa to come bring presents?

Guess what? I haven't done it in years, but last year I did put up a small tree with lights. I would have left it up all year but the little lights burned out.