Is Jesus God?

[Karma Police]

Just curious. I was hoping a theist could answer this. Is Jesus God? I was taught that he is and died so god could forgive us of our sins. If God died so God could forgive our sins, then why did he die in the first place? Why couldn't he have just forgiven us? And why does the Bible make god out to be a vengeful, wrathful god in the beginning and then he spazzes and goes all "love" on us? This turned into more than a 1 question post I had originally intended!

[Tenspace]

Long ago, I saw a note scrawled in a bathroom stall that said, "Jesus is Lord".

I crossed off Jesus and put "God" instead (being the good Jew that I was)...

A week later, someone crossed off God and wrote, "No, Jesus is!" :D

Ten

[calpurnpiso]

Just curious. I was hoping a theist could answer this. Is Jesus God? I was taught that he is and died so god could forgive us of our sins. If God died so God could forgive our sins, then why did he die in the first place? Why couldn't he have just forgiven us? And why does the Bible make god out to be a vengeful, wrathful god in the beginning and then he spazzes and goes all "love" on us? This turned into more than a 1 question post I had originally intended!
Well, Iulius Caesar was god and the murder of this "god" would become centuries later the "Passion, crucifixion and resurrection" of Christ!

These scholars clearly make a valid point this is the case and have lots of historical evidence to back their claims!.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

Christians have been worshiping all along a Heroic Roman leader who became a god.!
Alas, the Vatican sure follows in the Roman Empire pagan ways of old...but this is obvious only to the educated not infected with Christianity...:)

[Lurker]

Just curious. I was hoping a theist could answer this. Is Jesus God? I was taught that he is and died so god could forgive us of our sins. If God died so God could forgive our sins, then why did he die in the first place? Why couldn't he have just forgiven us? And why does the Bible make god out to be a vengeful, wrathful god in the beginning and then he spazzes and goes all "love" on us? This turned into more than a 1 question post I had originally intended!
1. Yes.
2. To reconcile man's relationship with god.
3. Apparantly god doesn't work that way.
4. I see god's character the same in the OT and NT.

[alaspooryorick]

According to the theology outlined at the Council of Nicaea, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God are all the same entity, neither modes as proposed by "the heretic" Sabellius, nor part of a hierarchy, as proposed by "the heretic" Arius. They are all same, and all equal, wacky as it sounds. What you were taught is correct in accordance with accepted Christian theology.

Actually correct, that's an entirely different matter. ;)

The above answer is courtesey of Villanova University theology class. ;)

[snap crafter]

They are seperate but the same. They are like water, or like an egg, Jesus is identifiable from the father, but he is still the father. That's the typical crazy talk I hear.

Here's the only way it can make sense: Jesus was god in human flesh, so when god rose to heaven there was no more jesus. The holy spirit is simply God touching a person, a name for the action. They are all 1 thing in 3 different contexts.

[Revmonkeyboy]

They are seperate but the same. They are like water, or like an egg, Jesus is identifiable from the father, but he is still the father. That's the typical crazy talk I hear.

Here's the only way it can make sense: Jesus was god in human flesh, so when god rose to heaven there was no more jesus. The holy spirit is simply God touching a person, a name for the action. They are all 1 thing in 3 different contexts.
That is the crap I heard growing up, I think diffrent christian sects fight over the details.

revmonkeyboy

[ghoulslime]

They are seperate but the same. They are like water, or like an egg, Jesus is identifiable from the father, but he is still the father. That's the typical crazy talk I hear.

Here's the only way it can make sense: Jesus was god in human flesh, so when god rose to heaven there was no more jesus. The holy spirit is simply God touching a person, a name for the action. They are all 1 thing in 3 different contexts.
A sort of three-in-one god! Ok, I can follow that. It's much better than just a plain old ordinary god with one form - kind of scarier and more mystical.

My old girlfriend had a vibrator kind of like that. It had a rotating dong for good old vaginal plowing, a handy mini probe for some anal action, and it had a night light on it too so you could see to get the wrapper off of the condom and ready to go. I try to envision that vibrator whenever I think of the Christian god.

[ocmpoma]

"3. Apparantly god doesn't work that way."

Man, it almost makes me wish I was a thiest, so that I could dismiss arguments like that:

Theist Me: Son, it's time for bed.
Son: Why do I have to go to bed now?
Theist Me: It's bedtime.
Son: Couldn't bedtime be a little later?
Theist Me: No. Apparently, bedtime doesn't work that way.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the three-in-one God of Christianity:

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that one is not three, and the three are not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies"

-Letter to John Adams, 1813

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

Jesus is God is so much that he isn't.

[Tenspace]

Jesus is God is so much that he isn't.
Did Zaphod say that? Sounds like him. :)

[moxnix46]

Wether or not Jesus is a god or was a god is silly to say the least. There have been many wise men that have existed, and there are many today. Did he exist at all? I believe he did. Did he have some great humanitarian ideas concerning how to live in peace? Yes. Was he killed in the end, maybe, for political reasons. Is the bible an accurate teachng of what Jesus said. No. To much editing has happened. Are there any words or teaching's of Jesus left in the bible? I believe there are, most of which is misinterpreted or ignored by christians. Man's ability to create has built an entire religion around one wise man. Is this what Jesus wanted? Absolutely not.

[Lumpy]

To attempt an answer at the original question. Yes Jesus is God. The God of the bible is clearing portrayed as eternal, having no beginning and no end. When God presented Himself to Moses at the burning bush, Moses asked God his name and God said "I am". God simply IS. Space, time, and matter were all created by God and He exists outside of that. Now, If God should chose to become a man and live on earth for 33 years in order to pay the price for man's sins, He would not cease to exist in the eternal. Jesus being fully God, read the thoughts of men, healed the sick, raised the dead, and was resurrected from the dead himself. Likewise, Jesus being fully man, needed food, had to sleep, cried tires, and as a man submitted Himself to God the eternal just as man should.

As to why God cannot simply forgive sins without a price being paid is wrapped up in the fact that by God's very nature, he must be just. To one degree or another we all recognize that somethings are wrong, and when the people caught doing those are judged, we expect them to receive punishment or have to pay for what they have done. If your own mother were raped and killed, and the man responsible was caught, you wouldn't say "why can't they just forgive him?" That's why we have prisons, hell, and karma. The price for trying to live as your own God is separation from God. That is the direction we are all heading, and it is only because God paid the price Himself that we have any hope of being reconciled with Him.

I hope you will try to understand what I've said from the view point of a believer.

[Bighead]

Wow....so, what is god's very nature then? And why does god's very nature make him such a cruel bastard? stupid fucking god.

[Lumpy]

Bighead,
I'm assuming that you believe God is cruel bastard because of some loss in your own life, or just by the virtue that life is difficult and there is alot of pain an suffering in the world. From my point of view God created the world without the pain and suffering, and we turned our backs on Him. We hear it all the time: "No one's gonna tell me what to do"..."It's my life"..."I know what's good for me". God gave us the world he created and this is what we have made of it. We want to live apart from God, and this is what it's like.

What are you mad about? Did someone murder a loved one? God told that person not to murder. Did they die in a car wreck? God wasn't behind the wheel. Did your wife cheat on you and leave you? God said not to cheat, be faithful, and that he hates divorce. Someone steal from you or do you have all the money you ever wanted and you're still not happy? God said not to steal and not to place anything above Him. It's not right to live against God and then get mad when He doesn't miricle us out of our troubles.

God has revealed his nature to us. God is Love. Love is a big word and it encompasses alot of things: Mercy, compassion, sacrifice, justice, correction, and punishment. If you think it through, there is no love if there is no justice. It is because of love that there must be justice.

[Bighead]

riiiight. I don't actually believe that god is a cruel bastard...because there is no god. And Jesus is the bastard. But I digress.
I think he is a cruel fuck-wad because of the same old argument that you've probably heard already...god created everything, therefore he created cruelty and sin and suffering and all that shit....he created people who he knew would he would send to hell......blah blah blah. He's mean fuck. That is, he would be a mean fuck, if in fact christianity was true...but as we all know, the flying spaghetti monster is the only truth.

And regarding your argument about wives cheating and god said not to cheat...if he were "just", as you say, the wife who cheated would be the one punished, not the one who was cheated on.

God damn god

[moxnix46]

]Lumpy=To attempt an answer at the original question. Yes Jesus is God. The God of the bible is clearing portrayed as eternal, having no beginning and no end.
If you can believe this then why is it impossible for you to believe that the universe also has no beginning and no end?
When God presented Himself to Moses at the burning bush, Moses asked God his name and God said "I am". God simply IS. Space, time, and matter were all created by God and He exists outside of that.
Really? You saw this happen? Show me where this is a fact as quoted by you, and please, no swishy undocumented biblical scriptures.
Now, If God should chose to become a man and live on earth for 33 years in order to pay the price for man's sins, He would not cease to exist in the eternal. Jesus being fully God, read the thoughts of men, healed the sick, raised the dead, and was resurrected from the dead himself. Likewise, Jesus being fully man, needed food, had to sleep, cried tires, and as a man submitted Himself to God the eternal just as man should.
Your "god" Jesus was most likely murdered, thrown into a pit and devoured by starvng dogs. As was the practice of that day. Your thoughts of him reading thoughts, being resurrected and raising the dead, are merely a creation of men that your repeating with no factual significance.
As to why God cannot simply forgive sins without a price being paid is wrapped up in the fact that by God's very nature, he must be just.
Completely ludicrous, deserves no reply.
To one degree or another we all recognize that somethings are wrong, and when the people caught doing those are judged, we expect them to receive punishment or have to pay for what they have done. If your own mother were raped and killed, and the man responsible was caught, you wouldn't say "why can't they just forgive him?" That's why we have prisons, hell, and karma. The price for trying to live as your own God is separation from God. That is the direction we are all heading, and it is only because God paid the price Himself that we have any hope of being reconciled with Him.
No-one is heading anywhere. Society has rules of behavior and laws. God's not going to save you or condem you. Get over it. Your responsibility to yourself and society is your own.

I hope you will try to understand what I've said from the view point of a believer
I will never understand anyone who throws logic to the wind and choses to ignore their own responsibilities in life. If I am evil, it was my choice to be that way. Not gods will. If I am a decent human being it is also my choice. God has nothing to do with it.

[no1important]

Just curious. I was hoping a theist could answer this. Is Jesus God?
Depends who you talk to or what verse you believe in the contridictory dusty old book.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

[Lumpy]

Bighead:

"And regarding your argument about wives cheating and god said not to cheat...if he were "just", as you say, the wife who cheated would be the one punished, not the one who was cheated on."

I don't think that line of thought reflects the cause and effect universe we live in. What we do with our lives does impact those around us. What about your own sins?

Furthermore, I don't believe God created suffering, cruelty, or sin. Those are created in the absense of God. God is the standard of what is loving, truthful, fair, and compassionate. Only when we try to live with out Him are those other things created. I know that God is not happy with the world and the state of man's sinfulness. And it's not because He is a cosmic killjoy, It's because He wants the best for us, and we will simply not have it.

But God has promised to set things right again, and I believe He will. That is something no man or government will ever achieve.

[Tenspace]

Furthermore, I don't believe God created suffering, cruelty, or sin. Those are created in the absense of God.
I'll be the first to bring it up.... Welcome to the forum! :)

Now, about the comment. If god did not create suffering, cruelty, or sin, then he is not the only creator.

Then, of course, there's Isaiah:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these.

Just 'cause we're atheists don't mean we ain't schooled. Hope you're up for a healthy debate.

Tenspace

[Lumpy]

Mox,
I didn't really address what I did or didn't believe about the universe other than God created it. If you are asking if I believe the universe doesn't have an edge, I think science makes a good argument that there is a finite amount of matter, and there is an edge. If you are referring to the relatively new idea that the universe has been expanding and contracting without beginning or end: Well, first it's not observable, and I still don't know what explanation they give for the fact that that super heated speck of matter came from somewhere.

For the question about what Moses did or didn't hear from God: Obviously I believe the bible. I believe I have good reasons to trust it, it easily has the most manuscript evidence of any book written in the ancient world. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls shows that the books were very faithfully copied. By your standard, we shouldn't believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States just because we didn't witness it, and the only proof we have is some words written on old paper.

At least you agree my "God" Jesus lived and died. Can you agree that he was crucified? Roman historians and Jewish rabbi's both say that he was crucified, and both of those were enemies of the early church. In fact the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was crucified, practiced sorcery, and that his body was stolen by his disciples. So there you have even the jews saying that the tomb was empty. Do you doubt that they would have produced the body if they could? Yes normally, criminals were left on the cross, but this was the Passover. (Also don't ignore the fact that they have recovered the remains of other jews who were crucified and buried.) Nonetheless, it is well documented that the Romans were fairly sensitive to the religious beliefs of those they conquered so is it so inconceivable that they would release the prisoner Barabbas, or take bodies down from a cross? Furthermore, it is easy to date several New Testement manuscripts and fragments to within a generation of the events they describe. We know the Nero was killing Christians only 50 years after the crucifiction. We know that Pilate was a real governor. Therefore, if the basics were not true, it would have been easy to discredit them 1900 years ago. They could have gone to Pilate and asked if he condemned a man named Jesus. They could have gone to the Caiphus, Herod Antipas, or their sons. You say gospel story was a non-factual creation of men? Were you there? And please no swishy rhetorical rants by Russell and Ingersol.

It's ludicrous to believe that a just God would have to right wrongs? Alrighty then.

No ones going anywhere? Did you die and come back from the other side? Sounds like you believe it though, maybe you got a bad case of blind faith.

Is it because I do believe in God that I have thrown logic away? What responsiblities am I ignoring? When did I ever say that you didn't choice to be good or evil, and by the way, how have you even determined what exactly is "good" and what is "evil"? Who has laid out for you what is good? You're not going to tell me that there is some objective morality out there somewhere that we need to follow are you? You're not going to tell me you follow the morality laid out by some government of men are you?

[Tenspace]

By your standard, we shouldn't believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States just because we didn't witness it, and the only proof we have is some words written on old paper.
We have multiple corroborations regarding George Washington. From others who knew him, from general historical documents, and most importantly from George himself - I mean, c'mon, whose signature is that? His legacy is his written word. We have no writings from Jesus. Nothing that wasn't written by someone else.

Tenspace

[calpurnpiso]

Lumpy wrote:

"God has revealed his nature to us. God is Love. Love is a big word and it encompasses alot of things: Mercy, compassion, sacrifice, justice, correction, and punishment. If you think it through, there is no love if there is no justice. It is because of love that there must be justice. "

Which one?... Osiris, Min, Atum, Amun, Horus, Imhotep, Serapis, Ahuramazda, Mihras, Mitra, Apollo, Bacchus, Dyonisus, Attis,?...Remember all of them are OLDER than Jaoweh Jesus and Allah.....and ALL of them performed IDENTICAL miracles, offered IDENTICAL salvation millennia before the pagan amalgam of Jesus showed his face in the Myth World of divine entities.....:)

[Lumpy]

Tenspace,
Thank you for the welcome. I'll try not to wear it out.

I am familiar with Isa 45:7. I'll start by saying that I don't believe evil is a substance. "Evil" is the by-product of our actions (or perhaps we have evil thoughts.) It is the act of disobeying God. It's just my opinion but I don't believe that the fruit Adam and Eve ate brought evil into the world. It was their act of disobedience. Their lack of trust, and their desire to be like God. Satan was not created evil. His rebellion was evil.

As to Isa 45:7. God is talking about His sovereignty here. He will raise up a nation, a king (Cyrus), who will be used as a tool to restore Israel. To be sure, God does have control over what happens, but that does not mean he is the author of it. God does allow earthquakes, floods, and tornados. God does punish, and perhaps that punishment even leads to death. You can call those natural evils, but that does not mean that God is morally evil, because he is the standard of what is moral. For example: If God is the author of life then it is his right alone to take it back. He is allowing both moral and natural evils to occur, but will bring an end to both when His purpose is complete.

I know you won't like or accept that but...its late. There's more to say about Isa 45. I'll save it for later.

[calpurnpiso]

Here is where the Christian stories originated from:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

And ALL of the claims by the author/researcher can be backed up by epigraphical and archeological evidence. I hate to burst the Christian bubble. They have been CONNED and LIED to for believing anything WITHOUT doing RESEARCH first. If they had any brains they would realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE!..:)

[Tenspace]

Tenspace,
Thank you for the welcome. I'll try not to wear it out.

I am familiar with Isa 45:7. I'll start by saying that I don't believe evil is a substance. "Evil" is the by-product of our actions (or perhaps we have evil thoughts.) It is the act of disobeying God. It's just my opinion but I don't believe that the fruit Adam and Eve ate brought evil into the world. It was their act of disobedience. Their lack of trust, and their desire to be like God. Satan was not created evil. His rebellion was evil.

As to Isa 45:7. God is talking about His sovereignty here. He will raise up a nation, a king (Cyrus), who will be used as a tool to restore Israel. To be sure, God does have control over what happens, but that does not mean he is the author of it. God does allow earthquakes, floods, and tornados. God does punish, and perhaps that punishment even leads to death. You can call those natural evils, but that does not mean that God is morally evil, because he is the standard of what is moral. For example: If God is the author of life then it is his right alone to take it back. He is allowing both moral and natural evils to occur, but will bring an end to both when His purpose is complete.

I know you won't like or accept that but...its late. There's more to say about Isa 45. I'll save it for later.
I accept your point - I don't want it to appear that I'm quoting out of context. But it is an example of a pretty specific statement.

I hope you'll answer my first question: If God didn't create evil, then who did? Do you see it as a natural byproduct of absolutes? Is it a manifest thing, a concrete object with big horns and foul breath (not unlike Ghoulslime, I might add :))? Or is evil an inherent feature of the universe, like matter, energy, and pressure?

Tenspace

[Lumpy]

Tenspace,
You goaded me into one more retort. If I chose not to believe in the life George Washington the same way you choose not to believe in the life of Jesus Christ. How exactly are you going to convince me otherwise? Whose signature? Why that's the signature one of his followers put on an old piece of paper to make me believe that he was a great man who would never tell a lie. They all made up that story about him being the president because we were lacking a leader and a national identity after the British gave us our freedom at the Boston Tea Party. You see, they just want to control us, and they know that people are dumb and want to believe in something. The man who portrayed George Washington when they needed someone to give a speech was a English butler named Charlie Wigglesworth, he got left behind when he dived into Boston Harbor to save the tea.

George Washington lived 200 years ago. Jesus lived 2000 years ago, or 10 George Washington's ago. Jesus had multiple people, friend and foe, writing about him. George Washington left a legacy but Jesus didn't??? Never a general. Never a king. Died at 33 a criminals death, and now we mark our years by his life. Also, we don't know what Jesus did or didn't write, but we agree it's gone now. So let me ask you, in another 100 years when the National Archives loses the battle and Washington's letters are dust, will his legacy end then?

Just to set the record straight, I'm a big fan of George Washington. Heres something from his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

[ocmpoma]

"For the question about what Moses did or didn't hear from God: Obviously I believe the bible. I believe I have good reasons to trust it, it easily has the most manuscript evidence of any book written in the ancient world. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls shows that the books were very faithfully copied. By your standard, we shouldn't believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States just because we didn't witness it, and the only proof we have is some words written on old paper."

This is a false comparison (and an old one, at that). Manuscript evidence and faithful copying mean that a text printed today is an accurate copy of the original text - it says absolutley nothing about the validity or truthfullness of the text itself. It doesn't matter if today's Bible is an accurate copy - it is still an accurate copy of ancient mythological texts. In order to make a correct comparison, you would need non-Biblical evidence of the events described in the book, just as their is evidence of George Washington that does not originate from one place. By the way, evidence of place names and people named in the Bible is not evidence of the events described.

[Lumpy]

Tenspace,
I don't believe evil is a beast, or a force that moves under it's own conscience. Evil is a lack of good. God is the standard of what is good. God is love. A lack of love is hate and hate is evil. Is it evil to murder? Yes, because God said not to murder. Even today in state penal codes there is usually a section which says that violation not listed in the code as a violation is not a violation. God is the ultimate lawgiver.

I don't believe in evil incarnate as it were. Water can quinch thrist and it can drown. Fire can cook food and it can burn. A person can both take a life or save a life with the pull of trigger. Whether those forces or actions are good or evil depend on how the stand up in God's light.

Take WW2 for example: Millions of people suffered and /or died, yet it is generally recognized as a "just" and "necessary" war.

[moxnix46]

First off, welcome to the baords Lumpy. :) I feel a little wierd saying that as I am also new here.:)
I didn't really address what I did or didn't believe about the universe other than God created it. If you are asking if I believe the universe doesn't have an edge, I think science makes a good argument that there is a finite amount of matter, and there is an edge. If you are referring to the relatively new idea that the universe has been expanding and contracting without beginning or end: Well, first it's not observable, and I still don't know what explanation they give for the fact that that super heated speck of matter came from somewhere.
No actually I was making my statement concerning your saying you believe in a god, that has no beginning and no end. I was simply saying the universe could also be that way. in fact, Physics is very close to proving it. So yes I am referring to the relatively new idea.:)

For the question about what Moses did or didn't hear from God: Obviously I believe the bible. I believe I have good reasons to trust it, it easily has the most manuscript evidence of any book written in the ancient world. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls shows that the books were very faithfully copied.
No it doesn't. Evidence by biblical archaeologist's have proven quite the contrary. The bible is in fact a book that was constructed aproximately 500 years after the death of christ, from small phamplets written by individuals each being quite differant in thier views of christianity, and how it should be practiced. The dead sea scrolls are actually very differant than the bible in content and meaning.
There are other manuscripts in fact, from other civilizations that predate the scrolls by a couple of thousand years. These have meaning and logic similar to that of the scrolls, but are in no way connected to them.

By your standard, we shouldn't believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States just because we didn't witness it, and the only proof we have is some words written on old paper.
Not at all. Poor comparrison.
At least you agree my "God" Jesus lived and died. Can you agree that he was crucified?
I agree there is enough compiled evidence to say that Jesus "the man", a wise man, indeed lived. Yes I will agree on that part. A god? No. Was he crucified? There really isn't enough evidence to show that he clearly was. It may indeed be a story just as the resurrection is.
Roman historians and Jewish rabbi's both say that he was crucified, and both of those were enemies of the early church. In fact the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was crucified, practiced sorcery, and that his body was stolen by his disciples. So there you have even the jews saying that the tomb was empty. Do you doubt that they would have produced the body if they could? Yes normally, criminals were left on the cross, but this was the Passover. (Also don't ignore the fact that they have recovered the remains of other jews who were crucified and buried.) Nonetheless, it is well documented that the Romans were fairly sensitive to the religious beliefs of those they conquered so is it so inconceivable that they would release the prisoner Barabbas, or take bodies down from a cross? Furthermore, it is easy to date several New Testement manuscripts and fragments to within a generation of the events they describe. We know the Nero was killing Christians only 50 years after the crucifiction. We know that Pilate was a real governor. Therefore, if the basics were not true, it would have been easy to discredit them 1900 years ago. They could have gone to Pilate and asked if he condemned a man named Jesus. They could have gone to the Caiphus, Herod Antipas, or their sons. You say gospel story was a non-factual creation of men? Were you there? And please no swishy rhetorical rants by Russell and Ingersol.
Haha, no I indeed wasn't. And I will make no statements of implied knowledge to the contrary. Agreed, no swishy statements. :)

It's ludicrous to believe that a just God would have to right wrongs? Alrighty then.
First you would have to believe in said "just god" before you could make ludicrous statements.

No ones going anywhere? Did you die and come back from the other side? Sounds like you believe it though, maybe you got a bad case of blind faith.
Now thats a completely differant belief isn't it? :) I have no blind faith, I am trying to help you dispel yours. :)
Is it because I do believe in God that I have thrown logic away? What responsiblities am I ignoring? When did I ever say that you didn't choice to be good or evil, and by the way, how have you even determined what exactly is "good" and what is "evil"? Who has laid out for you what is good? You're not going to tell me that there is some objective morality out there somewhere that we need to follow are you? You're not going to tell me you follow the morality laid out by some government of men are you?
Perception of reality is often distorted by misguided belief. Good and evil are part of our individual perception. We all cause good, and we all cause evil. How much of either one we cause is up to us.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace,
You goaded me into one more retort. If I chose not to believe in the life George Washington the same way you choose not to believe in the life of Jesus Christ. How exactly are you going to convince me otherwise? Whose signature? Why that's the signature one of his followers put on an old piece of paper to make me believe that he was a great man who would never tell a lie. They all made up that story about him being the president because we were lacking a leader and a national identity after the British gave us our freedom at the Boston Tea Party. You see, they just want to control us, and they know that people are dumb and want to believe in something. The man who portrayed George Washington when they needed someone to give a speech was a English butler named Charlie Wigglesworth, he got left behind when he dived into Boston Harbor to save the tea.
To "not believe" George Washington was a real man who served as the first POTUS, would require the following:
a cast of complicit thousands all over the globe.
forgery technique par excellence.
a complete disregard for written history.
a complete disregard for the genealogy on both Geo's and Martha.
The rejection of the written word from an entire era, including the writings of:
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Augustine Washington, Mary Ball, Westmoreland County, VA statistics and records, French soldiers at Fort Duquesne, John Jay, John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell, Thomas Johsnson, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, the creation and maintenance of the United States Navy, White Horse Harry Lee, the Library of Congress, etc. etc.
The rejection of the United States as a sovereign nation, and the rejection of all subsequent US history; Washington is our kingpin.

Are you ready to suspend belief in all of the above to support your theory that George Washington wasn't a real man?

Now, let's talk about Jesus. Name one author of the bible who was alive at the time of Jesus. None. All accounts of his existence were written between 40 and 90 years after his death. Jesus never penned a single word. All accounts are third-hand stories. All of the evidence for Jesus originates in one book. Even Muhammed wrote his own prophecies. Was Jesus illiterate? Unable to read or write?

George Washington lived 200 years ago. Jesus lived 2000 years ago, or 10 George Washington's ago. Jesus had multiple people, friend and foe, writing about him. George Washington left a legacy but Jesus didn't??? Never a general. Never a king. Died at 33 a criminals death, and now we mark our years by his life. Also, we don't know what Jesus did or didn't write, but we agree it's gone now. So let me ask you, in another 100 years when the National Archives loses the battle and Washington's letters are dust, will his legacy end then?
Again, none of the writers that discussed Jesus in their writings. None of them were contemporaries of Jesus. George Washington's existence can be proved through causal connections from current information.

Just to set the record straight, I'm a big fan of George Washington. Heres something from his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Great as he was, I would disagree with his religious stance, especially his writings with regard to the proclamation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday: Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me " to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness: "

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Tenspace

[Lumpy]

Tenspace and Mox,
Well it always seems to boil down to this. People will cling to what they believe, and they look and listen for what they want to see and hear. For example: I say the bible has more manuscript evidence than any other ancient text and you (Mox) says it doesn't. Who is right? I have a slew of books that support my view and no doubt you have several on your shelf that support yours. They were all written by men with their own set of beliefs and prejudices that colored what they wrote. You see these same men and women all over the Discovery Channel arguing everything from Crazy Horse to coffee beans. Who's right? I guess it comes down to having faith in what we believe.

Mox: I think you're way off on your 500 AD date for the compilation of the bible. The Septugiant pre-dates Jesus, and the 27 book New Testement was agreed upon in the fourth century. Discussions about the Canon go back to the first and second century.

Tenspace: First, if you are going to invalidate the words written about Jesus because they were written after his death ( or because earlier copies no longer exist), then you are also going to have to throw out Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and many of the Ceasars...to name a few. Next, Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive at the time of Jesus, knew him personally, and claimed that they were witnesses to the events they describe. You're right to say that they wrote these things down on paper decades after the event, but is it so uncommon for men to do so as they grow old and want to leave a record? As to other books of the New Testement: Peter...witness and A 1 disciple. Paul...claimed to have seen the risen Christ first hand, and before that was persucuting the church. So these are first hand accounts for the most part.

Mox: You say that Jesus was perhaps a "wiseman", but certainly no god. Do you also argue that early christians didn't worship him?

Tenspace: Back to George Washington. Citing the individuals and documents you mentioned, you KNOW that George Washington was a real man, and you KNOW the things he did. You KNOW it to be TRUE, because we have the documents and evidence that say so. Say sometime in the future we have a terrible disaster and every scrape of paper that documented Washington's life is destroyed. The government collaspes, the world is thrown into economic depression, and for all intents and purposes we enter a second Dark Age. Three hundred years from now, society slowly emerges again. Now, there are some "fanatics" who claim that a general named Washington defeated the British at Yorktown. Other's say it's not true and there isn't any proof. Is it true or not? It is true and not having the papers to prove it doesn't make it less so.

The case with Jesus is not even remotely that severe. You know that there were Christians visiting Holy sites in Jerusalem prior to 135 AD because that's when Hadrian built Roman temples over the sites to desecrate them. We know that they (Christians) were in Rome prior to 64 AD because thats when Rome burned (and so did the Christians). Man...that's 30 years after the crucifiction. You know from reading what the Romans wrote about them that they believed in the worship of only one God, believed that Jesus was crucified, that he rose again, and promised eternal life to those who believed on him. It is a simple fact of history, that only 300 years after the execution of a jewish carpenter, the movement he started would be the state religion of the empire that killed him. That being said there is more than enough evidence to support believe in the historic Jesus. Unless or course you don't want to believe.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace: First, if you are going to invalidate the words written about Jesus because they were written after his death ( or because earlier copies no longer exist), then you are also going to have to throw out Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and many of the Ceasars...to name a few.
But these men actually wrote things. Jesus' teachings are all second-hand writings. Again, there is a causal pathway leading to their history.

Next, Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive at the time of Jesus, knew him personally, and claimed that they were witnesses to the events they describe. You're right to say that they wrote these things down on paper decades after the event, but is it so uncommon for men to do so as they grow old and want to leave a record? As to other books of the New Testement: Peter...witness and A 1 disciple. Paul...claimed to have seen the risen Christ first hand, and before that was persucuting the church. So these are first hand accounts for the most part.
Sit back and read this (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html). It's the most objective discussion of the authorship of the bible that I've found. **thomas or lurker**, care to jump in?

Tenspace: Back to George Washington. Citing the individuals and documents you mentioned, you KNOW that George Washington was a real man, and you KNOW the things he did. You KNOW it to be TRUE, because we have the documents and evidence that say so. Say sometime in the future we have a terrible disaster and every scrape of paper that documented Washington's life is destroyed. The government collaspes, the world is thrown into economic depression, and for all intents and purposes we enter a second Dark Age. Three hundred years from now, society slowly emerges again. Now, there are some "fanatics" who claim that a general named Washington defeated the British at Yorktown. Other's say it's not true and there isn't any proof. Is it true or not? It is true and not having the papers to prove it doesn't make it less so.
Corroboration (tr. v. "To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain") is the key here. The evidence of Jesus sprouts like a branching tree with the bible as its root. George Washington's history comes from many sources.

The case with Jesus is not even remotely that severe. You know that there were Christians visiting Holy sites in Jerusalem prior to 135 AD because that's when Hadrian built Roman temples over the sites to desecrate them. We know that they (Christians) were in Rome prior to 64 AD because thats when Rome burned (and so did the Christians). Man...that's 30 years after the crucifiction.
I'm undecided as to whether the character of Jesus in the bible is modeled after a real person. I don't disagree that Christianity existed in 60CE.

You know from reading what the Romans wrote about them that they believed in the worship of only one God, believed that Jesus was crucified, that he rose again, and promised eternal life to those who believed on him.
Do you have any non-biblical corroboration with the above statement? References would help. Or are you relying only on the chapter Romans?

It is a simple fact of history, that only 300 years after the execution of a jewish carpenter, the movement he started would be the state religion of the empire that killed him. That being said there is more than enough evidence to support believe in the historic Jesus. Unless or course you don't want to believe.
Separate the historic Jesus from the religious Jesus. As I said, if he was a real man, fine, but I don't believe in anything supernatural, so I don't accept the miraculous stories.

Tenspace

[calpurnpiso]

There is NO secular evidence Jesus existed, no man, no carpenter, no miracle worker, ZILCH, niente, nada, zero, nichts. One must realize that in those ancient superstitious days of the 1st Century c.e. or 753 auc, Roman god were crucified on a cross, symbolic of the RAYS of the sun. People in those days thought the sun, moon, stars, air, water, trees, rocks, clouds, penis, vagina, birds, insects, snakes, fire were GODS.

One must take into account that the INTELLIGENTSIA ( philosophers, educated people, thinkers) of the Roman empire had their villas with their PRIVATE LIBRARIES, in the resort towns of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae.

The Roman empire extended to ALL the towns surrounding the Mediterranean, which they called Mare Nostrum ( our Sea)...this includes Egypt and Nutty Land ( Palestine, Jerusalem, Syria, Lebanon, etc). Well, on the 24th of August of 79 ce ( 832 auc ) at noon, Vesuvius erupted burying those towns, freezing them in time. They would not be discovered till the 18th Century. The excavations are still bringing amazing discoveries. The library of my namesake, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus ( father in law of Iulius Caesar) is still being translated with modern technology since the papiry were carbonized...and guess what?

NO EVIDENCE, whatsoever of the Christ, his friends, his ministry, his antics, his apostles, his virgin birth..ZERO...It is very unlikely that the Romans had not been aware of this miracle worker or of the author of the "Night of the Ancint Living Dead" that wrote under "Matthew"! AHHHH...perhaps Satan erased everything eh? LOL.

Here is the most likely origin of the Christian Fairy tales and the protagonist? A man that truly existed, was a HERO, was elevated to a god and his memory was kept ALIVE for a long time, IULIUS CAESAR. This makes sense, while the Christian fairy tales do not.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

[ocmpoma]

I say the bible has more manuscript evidence than any other ancient text and you (Mox) says it doesn't. Who is right?
Who cares?
Lumpy, you must've missed my previous post on "manuscript evidence" (#29):Manuscript evidence and faithful copying mean that a text printed today is an accurate copy of the original text - it says absolutley nothing about the validity or truthfullness of the text itself.

[Lumpy]

Calpurnpiso,
You've posted a few times and I've not replied. No offense but you seem a little "out there". You seem a little too angry, and your statements have been way too dogmatic. This is coming from a guy who believes in Christian fairy tales so take it with a grain of salt and don't be offended. However, just to show you that I have been reading your posts I'll say this: Given that Julius or Iulius Ceasar died 40 years before Jesus was born, and another 30 years would pass before he began his public ministry, I would not expect Julius' father in law to have anything in his library about the life of Jesus. At anyrate, I don't think you and I would get anywhere.

ocmpoma,
I didn't miss your point on manuscript evidence. I believed your statement was self-evident and didn't need a response. Oblivously, you can print a lie and copy it for thousands of years. It's still a lie. Nonetheless, documentary evidence plays an extremely important role in any historical study. If fact I'd say it's usually the starting point of any investigation. The story of the Trojan wars were just words on paper until someone decided to follow the clues and found what is arguably the city of Troy. The common charge has been that the bible has changed and been re-wwritten down the centuries. Well, if you have recovered some where around 5,000 complete books, over 25,000 fragmentary pieces, they show very little change in text and/or meaning, and many of those documents have been dated to within a few decades of the events they describe, then I'd say you have a pretty sound document. And yes, I'll grant you that the document MAY be false, but at the very least you've proven that it's consistantly false. However, in the case of the bible, I believe (with reason) that the other evidences tend to corroborate rather than disprove the history recorded in the book.

Tenspace,
First, are you saying that you don't except any oral history from the varius cultures who have or had no written history? Take for example the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Only the Sioux call tell you the details of how that battle raged. Do you discount their testimony? Second, You say we can believe in George Washington because we have many sources. I agree, we have many sources that STILL EXIST. In 2000 years, when those sources no longer exist, will George Washington still have crossed the Delaware? Lastly, you asked about non-biblical corroboation:
Tactius-"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it's origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Suetonius- " Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city." also " After the great fire at Rome...Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

The Talmud (rabbinical writings collected between 70-200 AD) "On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "His is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!" ............at this time I couldn't find the other direct quotes from the Talmud, but they also mention in an unkind way that Mary was a hairdresser who was raped by a Roman soldier, and that Jesus' disciples stole his body. You may enjoy that but notice that the Talmud appears to address each of the major beliefs about Jesus. He was born of a virgin...no his mother was a whore and was raped. He performed miricles...no it was sorcery. He was raise from the dead...no his disciples stole his body.

There are other sources to mention" Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Trajan, Pliny the Younger, Toledoth Jesu, Hadrian, Eusebius. I don't have the time to type out what they said. A pretty well documented book is "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testement" by F.F. Bruce.

It's late...have a good nite.

[ocmpoma]

Lumpy -
If you realize that manuscript evidence proves nothing about the Bible's claims, why do you bring it up at all? It doesn't support your case in any way. I like your comparison to The Iliad - remember the bit about actual people and places not corraborating the claims of the Bible? The fact that Ilium existed does not mean that Agamemnon angered Achilles.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace,
First, are you saying that you don't except any oral history from the varius cultures who have or had no written history? Take for example the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Only the Sioux call tell you the details of how that battle raged. Do you discount their testimony?
Multiple concurrent corroborations. The story of Custer's defeat did not emanate from a single source. We have accounts from both sides (actually more than that, if you consider there were three tribes fighting against the US army). There are even photographs of the battle's aftermath.

Second, You say we can believe in George Washington because we have many sources. I agree, we have many sources that STILL EXIST. In 2000 years, when those sources no longer exist, will George Washington still have crossed the Delaware? Lastly, you asked about non-biblical corroboation:

You're totally missing my point about causal connection. If his wooden teeth were in the Smithsonian, wouldn't that form a path in history to his existence? What physical items do we have for Jesus? In fact, do we have anything (not the Shroud or an essuary, but something incontrovertible).

Tactius-"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it's origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Suetonius- " Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city." also " After the great fire at Rome...Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

The Talmud (rabbinical writings collected between 70-200 AD) "On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "His is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!" ............at this time I couldn't find the other direct quotes from the Talmud, but they also mention in an unkind way that Mary was a hairdresser who was raped by a Roman soldier, and that Jesus' disciples stole his body.
None of the quotes you cited provide corroborative evidence as to the supernatural aspects of Jesus.

You may enjoy that but notice that the Talmud appears to address each of the major beliefs about Jesus. He was born of a virgin...no his mother was a whore and was raped. He performed miricles...no it was sorcery. He was raise from the dead...no his disciples stole his body.
First, I don't know what you mean by "you may enjoy" - I hope you're not referring to the violence quoted. I'll have to research the Talmudic comments before discussing further.

There are other sources to mention" Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Trajan, Pliny the Younger, Toledoth Jesu, Hadrian, Eusebius. I don't have the time to type out what they said. A pretty well documented book is "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testement" by F.F. Bruce.

It's late...have a good nite.
Thanks for the book info - I'll look into it. The sources you mention, with the exception of Josephus, again don't provide corroborative evidence or causal connections to anything supernatural about Jesus. And we know how Josephus' writings were influenced.

Take care... Ten

[calpurnpiso]

Lumpy wrote:

"You've posted a few times and I've not replied. No offense but you seem a little "out there". You seem a little too angry, and your statements have been way too dogmatic. This is coming from a guy who believes in Christian fairy tales so take it with a grain of salt and don't be offended. However, just to show you that I have been reading your posts I'll say this: Given that Julius or Iulius Ceasar died 40 years before Jesus was born, and another 30 years would pass before he began his public ministry, I would not expect Julius' father in law to have anything in his library about the life of Jesus. At anyrate, I don't think you and I would get anywhere. "

Remember, I only take offense when someone refers to me as a Christian. It is the greatest insult ever, due to their historical record of genocide, hipocresy, deviant plagiarism, thef, book burning and intellectual stagnation....and yes!..I'm angry at the violence, intellectual stagnation, and genocided inflicted on humanity for over 1700 years due to this demented delusions imposed to all of us by these nuts (i,e Ray de Chatillon, Urban II, Simon de Monfort, Torquemada, Hitler et al ) and they still at it in this 21st Century! In case you do not know this historical FACTUAL record DOCUMENTED by many people of the period here it is, and STUDY IT carfully, I have:

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

Wouldn't any SANE person be ANGRY at it?..Muslims, and native Americans and about ANY decent educated person in the planet not infected by the delusions of Christianity which KNOW HISTORY?.

Remember, there is NO SECULAR evidence there was ever a Christ, of course Christians love to IGNORE historical facts or REALITY for that matter! There is simply NO RECORD in Roman history documents texts et al, except for few sentences refered to a group of individuals called Christians which means ANNOINTED ONE followers, that Jesus the Christ was ever a real person...Alas, with a name like jesus that could refer to about ANYONE...or is it perhaps you do not know what the word Christ means?..there is another word that means the same KHRISHNA...and the person with this name performed IDENTICAL feats as those of the Chrestus ( not icluding Attis, Apollo, Chrishna, Dyonisus, Osiris with the same atributes). Can you DENY this fact?..or is it perhaps my "anger" t hat makes me say this?..lol..... What does this tell you? can you guess....?

Why would anyone with a healthy mind and educated RATHER accept the irrational tales of Christianity as fact and NOT this recent investigative report presented by scholars, scientists and archeologists this year? Wouldn't this show GnosisPhobia ( fear of knowledge) which would make Christianity disintegrate and as reality and join the other FAIRY TALES? Here, check it out:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

Do some study on it, deductive thinking, comparative analysis, check the sources in this investigative report. It was NOT dictated by angels or influenced by the used of psychoactive drugs. What organ do you use for thinking your heart or the brain? People that wrote the Babble had NO IDEA what the brain was for..Alas, if this book of lies, was inspire by a god, don't you think he would had known better?..What does this tell you?

Don't you believe ALL the contents of the Babble are true?..so, this jewl of ancient sci-fi must also be true no? So much for your Christian delusional beliefs. Sorry but if the shoe fits...

from Ezekiel 1:4-28

" As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the form of men, but each had four faces, and each had four wings.

Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under the wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another; they went straightforward, without turning as they went.
As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man in front; the four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle at the back. Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. And each went straightforward; wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. In the midst of the living creatures was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches moving to and fro, like a flash of lightning. And the living creatures darted to and fro, like a flash of lightning.
Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction; their appearance was like the gleaming of chrysolite; and the four had the same likeness, their construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. The four wheels rims were so high that they were dreadful and their rims were full of eyes round about. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads. And under the firmament their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another; and each creature had two wings covering its body. And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of a host; when they stood still, they let down their wings. And there came a voice from above the firmament over their heads; when they stood still they let down their wings.
And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness as it were of a human form.

And upward from what had the appearance of his loins I saw as were gleaming bronze, like the appearance of fire enclosed round about; and downward from what had the appearance of his loins I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was a brightness round about him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.
Such was the appearance of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face and I heard the voice of one speaking "

Hmmm.....give PEYOTL to anyone ( the Dine use it to "see their god") then a piece of paper to the person, and you'll be surprise to read very SIMILAR delusions!!..What does it tell you? do you know?....or is it my 'anger" talking?....:)

[bluster]

Greetings Bighead,

God´s nature is most definetly not human. It is probably easier to tell what god´s nature is not vs. what it is.

I believe that the only aspect of the nature of God that is fully comprehensible by us can be seen in the life, teachings, and actions of human Jesus.

I believe that Joshua ben Joseph was a human incarnation of what we might refer to us God.

I see him as a perfect human being revealing the true aspects of nature of God:

love, tolerance, forebearence, patience, and wisdom. I do not see any cruelty or biblical nastiness in him.

I also don´t think that it is fare to call god "cruel" considering that most if not all of the acts of evil and cruelty are caused either by human beings or by accidents/natural disasters which are still unfairly called "acts of god".

Wow....so, what is god's very nature then? And why does god's very nature make him such a cruel bastard? stupid fucking god.

[Lumpy]

Ocmpoma,
I didn't say that manuscript evidence proves nothing. It proves that the bible was accurately copied, and the earlier the copy, the less likely hood of interloption (which is a very common claim concerning the bible). I merely agreed with you that if a lie is written down on paper and then copied million times over a million years it remains a lie. Clearly, having already said I am a believer in Jesus Christ, I don't believe what was written was a lie, and because of manuscript evidence, I believe the Gospel story was accurately copied and passed down. I look at archeological evidence which I believe tends to corroborate rather than disprove numerous particulars of the bible, everything from people, places, events, and customs. I look at early church history, and find out what the first Christians believed about the person of Jesus Christ. What did the enemies of the early church believe about Christians. I reject what Calpurnpiso says about the origin of the "Christ myth" because people like Tactius and Josephus were there, and agree with the bible that Christianity sprang from a very real historical Jesus, who lived in Judea and was executed.

Tenspace,
I think you and I are talking past each other. My point over several past posts has been that, in the future, even if there no longer existed any causal connection, no documentary evidence, and no physical evidence, it would not change the facts of George Washington's life or deeds. We simply would not have the proof or perhaps even the knowledge that any such man ever lived or did what he did. I find it hard to believe that you as an individual have restricted belief to only those things that can be proved with verifible evidence that meets the standard you have seemingly set for bible. How much of what we believe in life is supported by incontrovertible evidence. I have a faith, I have reasons for believing what I believe. It is my opinion that you have no desire to share in my faith. You feel threatened by, hate or perhaps just dissapprove of my faith and no amount of evidence: historical, physical, or circumstantial will be enough to compel you to accept it. I'm actually ok with that. God will not compel you to follow him, so who am I. The first message in this thread asked for a theist to answer, so I'm trying to answer questions and give reasons to the best of my abiltiy. And please understand, I'm not saying I'm any different because I have obviously been reading and rejecting your reasoning as well. About my saying you might enjoy the portion of the Talmud I typed out: I wasn't referring to violence, I was referring to the jews giving their explanations as to the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection. Backing up a bit to corroboration. I don't see the story of Jesus as coming from one source as you say. The books of the New Testement were written by different people, in different places, at different times to different audiences.

Ah Calpurnpiso,
You sir are a character! I started laughing because I could just see you on the Dating Game:

CHUCK WOOLERY: (cheesy music fades) ...and we're back. Ok Babs which bachelor is your next question for?
FAKE BLOND BOMBSHELL: (smacking gum...Brooklyn accent) Ok...bachelor numba tooo. I'm a good Catholic gurl, would you be willing to go to mass wit me?
CALPURNPISO: ARRRRRGHHHH....HATE...CHRISTIAN...VILE...MURDER... BASTARD....ANGER...KILL...HITLER...@%$&^$*!@#*@!!! (blurr on the set...camera gets knocked over)
CHUCK WOOLERY: Hey hold on there pard...you can't see her til the end of the sh...Holy...somebod...let go of her...CUT TO COMMERCIAL! CUT TO COMMERCIAL!

[Tenspace]

Tenspace,
I think you and I are talking past each other. My point over several past posts has been that, in the future, even if there no longer existed any causal connection, no documentary evidence, and no physical evidence, it would not change the facts of George Washington's life or deeds. We simply would not have the proof or perhaps even the knowledge that any such man ever lived or did what he did. I find it hard to believe that you as an individual have restricted belief to only those things that can be proved with verifible evidence that meets the standard you have seemingly set for bible. How much of what we believe in life is supported by incontrovertible evidence.
We are missing each other's points. So far, it's about the only thing I agree with that you've said. :P

I have a faith, I have reasons for believing what I believe. It is my opinion that you have no desire to share in my faith. You feel threatened by, hate or perhaps just dissapprove of my faith and no amount of evidence: historical, physical, or circumstantial will be enough to compel you to accept it.
I have no desire to share your faith is another statement I agree with! :) I am all those things: afraid of the future for humanity, threatened by the constant tramplings of life and liberty in the name of religion, but I don't disapprove of your personal belief of your choosing, unless you attempt to impose its rules on others, whether through scientific ignorance or preconceived beliefs of reward or salvation.

I'm actually ok with that. God will not compel you to follow him, so who am I.
It's a point many theists miss, or won't accept. I had a long-term relationship with God that lasted almost forty years. I have known him.

The first message in this thread asked for a theist to answer, so I'm trying to answer questions and give reasons to the best of my abiltiy. And please understand, I'm not saying I'm any different because I have obviously been reading and rejecting your reasoning as well. About my saying you might enjoy the portion of the Talmud I typed out: I wasn't referring to violence, I was referring to the jews giving their explanations as to the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection. Backing up a bit to corroboration. I don't see the story of Jesus as coming from one source as you say. The books of the New Testement were written by different people, in different places, at different times to different audiences.
Another correct statement. Stories, compiled into a single book, represent the entire source of information for Christianity (and Judaism for that matter). Many stories told of events that happened many years before the author lived. I don't see the bible as a historical, chronological account of events, from the beginning of the Earth to its destruction and the salvation of believers. To me, it is simply a collection of stories.

I'm tired, sorry if I'm a bit cranky tonight... I'll try presenting my key points from a different angle tomorrow.

Ten

[calpurnpiso]

Lumpy wrote:

"Ah Calpurnpiso,
You sir are a character! I started laughing because I could just see you on the Dating Game "

Is that the only thing you have to say? Attacking the messenger while completely IGNORING the message? What's the matter, is the truth that the Babble is nothing more than a compilation of idiotic ancient fantasies too hard to bear? Here, just land for a minute, sober up from your christ-psychosis and read this again:

"Remember, I only take offense when someone refers to me as a Christian. It is the greatest insult ever, due to their historical record of genocide, hipocresy, deviant plagiarism, thef, book burning and intellectual stagnation....and yes!..I'm angry at the violence, intellectual stagnation, and genocided inflicted on humanity for over 1700 years due to this demented delusions imposed to all of us by these nuts (i,e Ray de Chatillon, Urban II, Simon de Monfort, Torquemada, Hitler et al ) and they still at it in this 21st Century! In case you do not know this historical FACTUAL record DOCUMENTED by many people of the period here it is, and STUDY IT carfully, I have:

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

Care to ELABORATE on this site, or is it perhaps that the TRUTH of Christianity's genocidal record makes you scape by the tangent commenting on the messenger instead to change the subject at hand? Hmmm....I see why Christian are so afraid of the TRUTH....the millions of victims of their genocidal lunacy has plagued their minds for over 1700 years....hey, you'll love this one, it is filled with Christian "love" and definition of "SIN".......ROTFLMAO...or are you still trembling and can't face the facts of history?...because this site is historically ACCURATE. Care to comment this time about the MESSAGE? I bet you couldn't, unless you bring the delusions of the babble into the discussion, which only could show your lack of knowledge on the subject....:)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sin.html

[Lurker]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sin.html
I was bored so I took a stroll over to this website that Cal referenced. The Nazareth-never-existed-during-the-time-of-jesus-section (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html) caught my eye. Seems the guy's facts are messed up (http://www.nazarethvillage.com/NVWeb/index_files/slide0016.htm). Probably can't trust much else on Cal's website.

[calpurnpiso]

Hey Lurker check this one too, it is also mess up!....LOL...Please land so you can understand facts. You and Lumpy can check them out......

Here is an interesting pious Christian act, a la Hitler, committed by a pious CHRISTIAN Methodist minister turned Colonel. I bet you never heard of the Sand Creek massacre have you? Check the Christian pious treatment of these "souless hedens" just like they have done throughout the ages....

http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/sandcreek.htm

"Shortly afterward, Chivington led a force of about 700 men into Fort Lyon, and gave the garrison notice of his plans for an attack on the Indian encampment. Although he was informed that Black Kettle has already surrendered, Chivington pressed on with what he considered the perfect opportunity to further the cause for Indian extinction. On the morning of November 29, he led his troops, many of them drinking heavily, to Sand Creek and positioned them, along with their four howitzers, around the Indian village.
Black Kettle ever trusting raised both an American and a white flag of peace over his tepee. In response, Chivington raised his arm for the attack. Chivington wanted a victory, not prisoners, and so men, women and children were hunted down and shot.

With cannons and rifles pounding them, the Indians scattered in panic. Then the crazed soldiers charged and killed anything that moved. A few warriors managed to fight back to allow some of the tribe to escape across the stream, including Black Kettle.
The colonel was as thourough as he was heartless. An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated. "

Hmmm.....who was Chivington?...check this pious Christian biography.....what a nice benevolent Christian man of high Christian morals!..Just like Christian Hitler, the Christian crusaders of the 12th Century and the pious Christian Conquistadors....:)

"Chivington was born in Lebanon, Ohio. After being drawn toward Methodism, Chivington decided to become a minister and was ordained in 1844. During 1853, he worked in a Methodist missionary expedition to the Wyandot people in Kansas. Because of his outspoken hatred of slavery, in 1856, Chivington received a threatening letter from pro-slavery members in his congregation. As a result, the Methodist Church transferred Chivington to a parish in Omaha, Nebraska.
In 1860, when he was made the presiding elder of the Rocky Mountain District of the Methodist Church, Chivington and his family moved to Denver, Colorado. In 1861 he received a commission as a Major in the 1st Colorado Volunteers under Colonel John P. Slough. His heroics as the Battle of Glorietta Pass in the New Mexico Territory earned him great praise, and he was appointed colonel of regiment in April 1862.

After the stemming the Confederate advance, his unit was increasingly deployed against Native Americans in the conflicts that erupted on the Colorado Eastern Plains during the Civil War. In Novmeber 1864 he led the 1st Colorado Cavalry into southeastern Colorado from Bent's Fort to supervise the movement of Arapaho and Cheyenne bands under Black Kettle that were in the process of relocating from their previous reservation along the Arkansas River to a new reservation in Indian territory in present-day Oklahoma. The events during the expedition remain a controversial topic to this day because of the brutality of the raid by Chivington's troops against largely unarmed Native Americans along Sand Creek. "

Just let me know if you want more historical FACTS about these pious Christians, I'll gladly provide them so you can check them for accuracy. I bet you don't know who Ray de Chatillon, Fray Diego de Landa, De Soto, Coronado, Simon de Monfort, Francisco Pizzarro, Carolus Magnus, were. Hint. all of them were devoted, pious true Christians!...........AHHH...christ-psychosis turns people into psychopathic killers, the 'voices and visions of jesus makes them be so moral and good...ROTFLMAO... :)

[calpurnpiso]

Hey Lurker do you know what the "great Disappointment of 1844" was?....and what other events of a religious-psychosis nature ocurred during the same year? One was in Iran.....Do you know who was Ellen White? or Charles T. Russell?.....

Hmmm..I bet this site is not true either eh?..at least not to Christian whose brains are in a kingdom not of this world?..:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm

[TheSnake]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
:lol::lol::lol:

[ocmpoma]

Lumpy -
The Bible can be as accurate a copy as you like, but I have heard of no corroborating external evidence for the events - events, mind you, not people or places - described therein. Care to offer some examples?

[Tenspace]

Hey Lurker do you know what the "great Disappointment of 1844" was?....and what other events of a religious-psychosis nature ocurred during the same year? One was in Iran.....Do you know who was Ellen White? or Charles T. Russell?.....

Hmmm..I bet this site is not true either eh?..at least not to Christian whose brains are in a kingdom not of this world?..:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
Agree with Snake :lol: :lol: :lol:

(from the article)
Israel is beefing up its mental health services as it prepares for an outbreak of Jerusalem Syndrome, a condition which convinces thousands of tourists they are Jesus or another biblical figure.

Tenspace

[Purity]

'trinity is christianitys god,' * father, *son, *holy spirit...

they say jesus is just the messenger etc, but yes after studying this shit in school, they make it seam like jesus was god, because jesus is the only proof they had of a god? that some mentally i'll, rambleing freak said a few things about a god etc people are like omg really, wow your the profit, and then the romans and jews are like, nyaa this guy is destroying our religion lets crucify his arse, etc

but basically in answer to your question, in theory no jesus isnt god, he was apparently the son of god... god's profit...some shit like that

[Purity]

'trinity is christianitys god,' * father, *son, *holy spirit...

they say jesus is just the messenger etc, but yes after studying this shit in school, they make it seam like jesus was god, because jesus is the only proof they had of a god? that some mentally i'll, rambleing freak said a few things about a god etc people are like omg really, wow your the profit, and then the romans and jews are like, nyaa this guy is destroying our religion lets crucify his arse, etc

but basically in answer to your question, in theory no jesus isnt god, he was apparently the son of god... god's profit...some shit like that

[Purity]

argh, sorry posted same thing twice :)

[Lurker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
To this I also say :lol:

And I say :lol: :lol: to another article (http://jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html) by your friend. This guy is possibly more unstable than the people mentioned above.

[calpurnpiso]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
To this I also say :lol:

And I say :lol: :lol: to another article (http://jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html) by your friend. This guy is possibly more unstable than the people mentioned above.
Of course how can we expect a 5 year old to understand algebra?...so, how could a Christ-psychosis infected brain understand the FACTS presented?

To you water is dry, fire makes one freeze and people resurrect to save with their blood from sins committed by mud and ribs created people when they discuss fruits with talking snakes.......AHH...such "facts". Healthy brains eh?....:)

[calpurnpiso]

Hey Lurker do you know what the "great Disappointment of 1844" was?....and what other events of a religious-psychosis nature ocurred during the same year? One was in Iran.....Do you know who was Ellen White? or Charles T. Russell?.....

Hmmm..I bet this site is not true either eh?..at least not to Christian whose brains are in a kingdom not of this world?..:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
Agree with Snake :lol: :lol: :lol:

(from the article)
Israel is beefing up its mental health services as it prepares for an outbreak of Jerusalem Syndrome, a condition which convinces thousands of tourists they are Jesus or another biblical figure.

Tenspace
Remember, you do not have to go to Jerusalem to see this psychosis. It can be seen in churches all over the world and during Christian holidays, like 'good friday" where people nail themeselves to crosses and flagellate themselves silly....and this is only one example! Alas, I can provide many of these Christian-psychotic acts examples that happen in many Christian countries throughout the world. Hmmm...you don't travel much do you?..:)

[Another brick in the wall]

I love the scene in Monty Python's "The Holy Grail" where the monks are bonking themselves with books. I could watch that movie a million times and not get sick of it.

[Another brick in the wall]

Pie Iesu domine . . . Donna ies requiem . . . THWACK!

[chattanoogajack]

To "not believe" George Washington was a real man who served as the first POTUS, would require the following:
a cast of complicit thousands all over the globe.
forgery technique par excellence.
a complete disregard for written history.
a complete disregard for the genealogy on both Geo's and Martha.
The rejection of the written word from an entire era, including the writings of:
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Augustine Washington, Mary Ball, Westmoreland County, VA statistics and records, French soldiers at Fort Duquesne, John Jay, John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell, Thomas Johsnson, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, the creation and maintenance of the United States Navy, White Horse Harry Lee, the Library of Congress, etc. etc.
The rejection of the United States as a sovereign nation, and the rejection of all subsequent US history; Washington is our kingpin.

Are you ready to suspend belief in all of the above to support your theory that George Washington wasn't a real man?

Now, let's talk about Jesus. Name one author of the bible who was alive at the time of Jesus. None. All accounts of his existence were written between 40 and 90 years after his death. Jesus never penned a single word. All accounts are third-hand stories. All of the evidence for Jesus originates in one book. Even Muhammed wrote his own prophecies. Was Jesus illiterate? Unable to read or write?
Tenspace
the issue tenspace is not whether or not we have more information on the historical jesus or george washington, but whether or not belief in jesus fits enough historical criteria to be believed in. or enough for it to be considered reasonable to believe. before you think that think this too low a bar for historical accuracy i would say that all historical events operate in the same way. that is the point that lumpy was trying to get at.
there is no such thing as absolute knowledge or proof of anything outside of individual experience, and even that can only satisfy one person at a time. if we can't know something absolutely the question becomes what do we know and how can we know it? or do we know anything at all? i would say to the latter, of course we do. we act and live on the basis of things we THINK we know all the time, and it is reasonable to do so. at no point during the course of the day are we required to give absolute proof for what we might be thinking about the world. when driving my car down the highway i am not required to be able to explain the mechanics of why the thing works, it is enough for me to believe that it will based on the fact that for me and for so many others, cars work. likewise it is reasonable to believe on the basis of what we know that there was a person named george washington. at every point in your attempt to argue that washington's existence stands on firmer ground, one could question how one knows these things to be true.
all things can be doubted. Hume taught us that. so the question becomes: on the basis of what i have, what is reasonable to believe? not, what can i know absolutely...

[Another brick in the wall]

So do you believe the biblical description of Jesus to be accurate?

[chattanoogajack]

i do. and, resting on my argument above, i think it is completely reasonable for me to do so...

[Another brick in the wall]

All of it? Rising from the dead, walking on water, water into wine?

[Mog]

Do you also believe Homer's description of the events in the Illiad and the Odyssey to be historically accurate since in a way your argument implies that they may be such?

[Another brick in the wall]

Are you implying that Zeus doesn't exist? Well, you can go to Tartarus if you like. I'll be spending eternity in the Elysian fields.

[chattanoogajack]

All of it? Rising from the dead, walking on water, water into wine?
ahhh...yes. the miracles. i knew they would come up sooner or later. yes i believe they happened.

[Another brick in the wall]

Why?

[chattanoogajack]

Do you also believe Homer's description of the events in the Illiad and the Odyssey to be historically accurate since in a way your argument implies that they may be such?
what? i don't follow...homer was consciously writing poetry . the writers of the new testament were consciously witing history. read the first chapter of luke for an example.

[Another brick in the wall]

Okay. Do you believe the Koran? Jews believe the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. What do you think about that?

[chattanoogajack]

Why?
well...three quick reasons, i believe scripture to be reliable. in its details. so, this would include its miracles. second, unless you are the type that thinks that out of the ordinary things NEVER happen, you would probably admit that hypothetically miracles CAN happen. so...if they can happen, then it is at least hypothetically possible that they did happen. so, if you approach scripture with an attitude of trust, not of skepticism, you will be inclined to think they didn't happen. lastly, i believe Jesus was and is God. if he wasn't able to perform miraculous deeds than he wasn't really god. and if he wasn't really god then what i believe doesn't really matter...that might seem circular and in a way it is...to that...so.

[chattanoogajack]

Okay. Do you believe the Koran? Jews believe the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. What do you think about that?
are you asking what i think about the jews/muslims. or are you asking what makes me think i am right.

[Another brick in the wall]

Either or.

[Mog]

Do you also believe Homer's description of the events in the Illiad and the Odyssey to be historically accurate since in a way your argument implies that they may be such?
what? i don't follow...homer was consciously writing poetry . the writers of the new testament were consciously witing history. read the first chapter of luke for an example.
So you are claiming the writers of the new testament are more credible just because they chose not to write it in poetic verse? And your citing of the bible as proof of itself isn't really very credible. Is it going to claim "Well, this is just a story, pay it no mind!"?

[chattanoogajack]

Do you also believe Homer's description of the events in the Illiad and the Odyssey to be historically accurate since in a way your argument implies that they may be such?
what? i don't follow...homer was consciously writing poetry . the writers of the new testament were consciously witing history. read the first chapter of luke for an example.
So you are claiming the writers of the new testament are more credible just because they chose not to write it in poetic verse? And your citing of the bible as proof of itself isn't really very credible. Is it going to claim "Well, this is just a story, pay it no mind!"?
i am saying they weren't writing poetry.

[Another brick in the wall]

How is that relevant? There's poetry in the bible: Psalms, Song of Solomon.

[chattanoogajack]

How is that relevant? There's poetry in the bible: Psalms, Song of Solomon.
poetry, ought to be read as poetry. in other words, when david says "all thy waves and breakers have swept over me." he is not saying in an y literal sense that he is drowning. it is poetry. luke however is writing history, so when he says jesus fed five thousand he intended for it to be read as history.
that's how it's relevant

[Another brick in the wall]

How is it possible to walk on water or turn water into wine? If you read a story like that in a newspaper or heard it from a friend, I bet you wouldn't believe it.

[Mog]

How is that relevant? There's poetry in the bible: Psalms, Song of Solomon.
poetry, ought to be read as poetry. in other words, when david says "all thy waves and breakers have swept over me." he is not saying in an y literal sense that he is drowning. it is poetry. luke however is writing history, so when he says jesus fed five thousand he intended for it to be read as history.
that's how it's relevant
I have to disagree. Poetry is a useful mnemonic device. Its easier to remember all the details of a story when its in poetry as opposed to prose. Thus a story like the Illiad or Beowolf has a better chance of transfering relatively intact orally. So poetry is a viable device for recoring history. You are also assuming the poetic tradition of the people writing the bible is the same as the poetic tradition of Homer. Homer may have meant things literally or figuratively, but you can't make the assumption that its either one or the other.

[chattanoogajack]

How is that relevant? There's poetry in the bible: Psalms, Song of Solomon.
poetry, ought to be read as poetry. in other words, when david says "all thy waves and breakers have swept over me." he is not saying in an y literal sense that he is drowning. it is poetry. luke however is writing history, so when he says jesus fed five thousand he intended for it to be read as history.
that's how it's relevant
I have to disagree. Poetry is a useful mnemonic device. Its easier to remember all the details of a story when its in poetry as opposed to prose. Thus a story like the Illiad or Beowolf has a better chance of transfering relatively intact orally. So poetry is a viable device for recoring history. You are also assuming the poetic tradition of the people writing the bible is the same as the poetic tradition of Homer. Homer may have meant things literally or figuratively, but you can't make the assumption that its either one or the other.
forgive me...i should have said poetic language.
for instance when someone asks me if i read the bible literally i always have to question what that means. allegory is allegory. metaphor is metaphor. historical description is what it is.

[Mog]

Except we're back to square one. How can you claim that the bible, even the most creduous parts, written in a "historical descriptive way" is accurate, while other books, just as credulous, written in the same "historical descriptive way" are not? How can you distinguish "historically descriptive" from allegory if you are willing to accept physically impossible events as reality?

[Lumpy]

Tenspace,

I have no desire to share your faith is another statement I agree with! I am all those things: afraid of the future for humanity, threatened by the constant tramplings of life and liberty in the name of religion, but I don't disapprove of your personal belief of your choosing, unless you attempt to impose its rules on others, whether through scientific ignorance or preconceived beliefs of reward or salvation.
I reflect your concerns almost word for word, but from a Christian world view. I find it interesting that you feel that life and liberty are threatened by religion, when Thomas Jefferson claimed that life and liberty were given to all men by the Creator. Of course Jefferson's statement was very intentional. Kings, Presidents, and governments can take back what they have given, but they have no right to take what God has given (which also sums up the Christian argument on abortion nicely). You seem to believe that just because you don't accept or believe in a personal God that you don't have a religion. Whatever you believe with all your heart, whatever guides your actions, whatever you devote your time and money to...that is your religion. Someone's religion is going to be trampled by somebody else's. If I'm not allowed use of a public building for a church meeting because it is a church meeting, my liberty has been trampled. If a student can't offer a prayer to Jesus during a graduation ceremony, his liberty has been trampled.

About imposing rules: I would imagine that you have a list of rules in your head that you believe everyone should be held to. You must certainly believe that one man shouldn't murder another man. No doubt, you believe that I should not be allowed to steal from you. You have a world view, something has formed your opinions. My question to you is: Where do you get off imposing your rules on others and by what authority?

The difference is you believe that the rules I would impose are given by a God that doesn't exist, and therefore invalid. The rules you would impose stem from the use of "human logic" or the "universal rights of man". Now I have to ask what man has decided to grant those rights, what rights will be universal, and is he going to change his mind?

It's a point many theists miss, or won't accept. I had a long-term relationship with God that lasted almost forty years. I have known him.
I can accept it but help me understand it. Based on that statement, you sound almost as if you know God, but have chosen to reject Him. Either that, or you're telling me you practiced religion for forty years. Knowing God and practicing religion are two different things. You can't have a personal relationship with someone, and then decide they don't exist.

[Lumpy]

Calpurnpiso,

Is that the only thing you have to say? Attacking the messenger while completely IGNORING the message? What's the matter, is the truth that the Babble is nothing more than a compilation of idiotic ancient fantasies too hard to bear? Here, just land for a minute, sober up from your christ-psychosis and read this again:
Yeah...that's pretty much all I have to say to you: You'd be funny on the Dating Game.

You deny the human condition preferring to pawn off it's worst aspects to Christianity. As if to say that before the Christians came Egypt never held a slave, the Greeks never killed their children by exposure, Rome never invaded it's neighbor, and the druids skipped merrily along with the woodelves spreading cheer and kisses.

You're rants about Hitler's evil being the natural result of his bible thumping beliefs are just dumb. Aside from a few political speechs made to the Catholic church in Germany, does it really seem to you that ol' Adolf was really down with Jesus? Let's see: No indication that he was much of a church goer. Did he love his neighbor? Was a turn the other cheek kinda of guy? From what I've read Hitler identified with Jesus in the loosest of terms, preferring to think of the "Savior" figure as a warrior saving the Aryan race, he actually depised the compassionate, suffering Jesus, and believed the entire religion weak, unsuitable to a strong National Socialist Germany, and having been corrupted by (drum roll please)....Da Jews!

Millions have died in the name of communism, how about the suffering that resulted from the caste society in India? How many Chinese were buried in the Great Wall for the glory of the Emperor?

Please stop with the whole Native American rant. My mother's family are indian, and although I'm predominately white, I am on the rolls, I carry the card, and get all the free medical care I want at the BIA hospitals. I've been to Wounded Knee, and I've read the book. It was a problem of cultures, it was a problem of gold and greed. Given that many indian cultures would allow the killing white settlers on nothing more than a dare, the indians were not always the innocent victims. The idea that faith in Jesus compelled people to kill indians is again...dumb.

Again...I don't care to have any further discussion with you, it would be fruitless and no understanding would result.

[chattanoogajack]

Except we're back to square one. How can you claim that the bible, even the most creduous parts, written in a "historical descriptive way" is accurate, while other books, just as credulous, written in the same "historical descriptive way" are not? How can you distinguish "historically descriptive" from allegory if you are willing to accept physically impossible events as reality?
so...what are you talking about. i don't remember disregarding "other books" that take themselves as history. if you mean homer, please find for me someone who thinks of homer, who EVER thought of homer as literal history. of course we did find out through homer that there was a troy, etc.
as to your last question, that is relatively easy if you read scripture...authorial intent is rather obvious in scripture.

[ghoulslime]

How is it possible to walk on water or turn water into wine? If you read a story like that in a newspaper or heard it from a friend, I bet you wouldn't believe it.
I've turned wine into water before, then walked right across the water I'd made and got some more wine! :D

[calpurnpiso]

Lumpy wrote:

"You deny the human condition preferring to pawn off it's worst aspects to Christianity."

Well, no other faith beats Christianity in psychopathic genocide and intellectual stagnation. If you get educated instead of reading only on book which consist in idiotic myths that you accept as reality, then you'll be able to see the reality of things, which shows Christian activities, teachings and beliefs are equally as delusional as those folks suffering from schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy. Why do you ignore these facts? Remember, though Christian delusions are appealing, delusions they remain! There is NO tooth fairy, which I proved with my JET ( Jesus Existence Test) Care to take the mild one? I'll post it if you want me too..


"As if to say that before the Christians came Egypt never held a slave, the Greeks never killed their children by exposure, Rome never invaded it's neighbor, and the druids skipped merrily along with the woodelves spreading cheer and kisses."

Remember, Christianity SYSTEMATICALLY ELIMINATED the competition in the most cruel and horrendous manner. This is a historical fact you like to ignore!...but this is understandable since Christianity dwells in a mythological realm void of logic and reason. Afraid of historical facts?

Christians have done worse things in their 1700 years of delusional thinking than those done by other religions combined! Hmm...do you think this site is not historically ACCURATE? I've done some research comparing its finding with others and it is!

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

"Please stop with the whole Native American rant. My mother's family are indian, and although I'm predominately white, I am on the rolls, I carry the card, and get all the free medical care I want at the BIA hospitals."

Obviously you're ignorant of the facts and clearly uneducated on history of the Americas. I suggest you watch "500 Nations" in the Discovery Channel,which clearly shows the atrocities committed by Christians since the 1500's. It is a FACT native Americans were the first slaves, as they were all over the Christianity infected nations of Central and South Americas. I know this since I have STUDIED and done research on this subject. I also have native South American genes.

"I've been to Wounded Knee, and I've read the book. It was a problem of cultures, it was a problem of gold and greed. "

This was NOT the main reason. Christians do not respect cultures! They ENSLAVE them, steal from them, subjugate them and insist in IMPOSING their arrogant and despicable mental illness on them! Don't they build CHURCHES on the land they conquer? I wonder why, if gold and greed was the only reasonl!. Christians NEVER attempt to learn from the cultures they subjugate and enslave unless it benefits their immoral Christian ambitions. Obviously you do not bother to check who was Diego de Landa, Christian Chevington in Sand Creek, De Soto, Pizzarro, Coronado, the extermination of the Tainos, Cortez, etc etc.... of course you have not the slightest idea about the Christian Crusades invasion and "final solution" of the 12th Century which lasted over 270 years...

"Given that many indian cultures would allow the killing white settlers on nothing more than a dare, the indians were not always the innocent victims. The idea that faith in Jesus compelled people to kill indians is again...dumb."

It is dumb not to think that it is! The indians were not always the innocent victims? Are you crazy?...who were the people being INVADED, DISPOSSESED, KILLED, placed in reservations? who?....wouldn't you defend yourself if your home is invaded?. Don't you think these Christian invaders were people that believed there was a god that saved with blood for the sin committed by a mud man and rib woman when they accepted a fruit offered by a talking snake?...and were only greedy gold seekers? LOL....This is such a sane and intelligent way of thinking..no?

The atrocities committed by Christians since their intolerant psychosis was made the LEGAL religion of the Roman Empire is very well DOCUMENTED ( read the link above) Who burned libraries, killed the unbeliever and buried a great civilization for over 1500 years? Do you know who?

"You're rants about Hitler's evil being the natural result of his bible thumping beliefs are just dumb."

Again, dumb is to believe Hitler was not a Christian but an atheist! This goes against HISTORICAL facts. Read "Mein Kampf" and you'll see the Babble inspired Hitler to write it. There are many "teachings" and messages taken from it! If Hitler had not been conditioned in the Christian psychosis, the holocaust would have not occurred. Of course Christians, the masters of disinformation want the wolrd to believe Hitler was an egocenric atheist!.....LOL....Tell me, WHO are the "Christ Killers"? Why don't you READ Christian Martin Luther, do you know who he is?, and his book called "Of the Jews and their lies". Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf. They are ACCURATE since I've read them in the original german.:

------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]


8. What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]


9. This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]


10. And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]


11. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309]


12. I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]


13. Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]


14. I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1]


15. I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 2]


16. ...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


17. As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


18. Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


19. For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


20. In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


21. It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


22. The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

__________________________________

Whitout reading his Babble, Mein Kampf, you are in NO position to discuss this man's religious infection. It is better if you would say, you're going to study about Hitler, instead of saying my statements are dumb. I, unlike you can back them up with empirical evidence. Please READ mein kampf...being a Christian, I know you'll enjoy it immensely....:)
Why don't you get educated in your OWN Christian beliefs so you don't appear ignorant of the facts?..and you have Native American genes? and are a Christian?.......hmm..they must be screaming inside of you fighting the European ones.......:)

[calpurnpiso]

How is it possible to walk on water or turn water into wine? If you read a story like that in a newspaper or heard it from a friend, I bet you wouldn't believe it.
I've turned wine into water before, then walked right across the water I'd made and got some more wine! :D
Are you copying me?..I've done that longer that you have.....and my wine taste better since it is faithful to the creator. I call it Libationes sanguines ( bloody drink)...:)