Part 2 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Not really.

The pharisees of Christianity are disappearing, as Empirical Science has grown up out of the roots of the previous Christian era and the Truth is, and has, indeed, become the Lord almost everywhere, at least, more and more so.

What will happen is that the Jews will realize that Christ was their Elijah, and they will become the lead in a new view of Christianity that recognizes the Christ as a personification of the concept, Truth.

Islam will convert as the Jews lead the way, showing that, indeed, Truth has a Father, in the correspondence it images with the ever unfolding Reality That sires that Truth.

This is over your head, now, but it makes sense and will happen.

 

If Christianity is a myth then those who started it must be the greatest, greatest director, writers and producer of all time greater than Steven Spielberg or Cecil B. DeMille, staring Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, King Harold, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Peter, Thomas, Mark, Mary Magdalene, Judas, James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, etc., Roman guards, population of Nazareth, Jerusalem, Lazarus.... their props they use were 1000 years advance that is why they were able to create the resurrection with a beam of light and explosion, earthquakes, the science of medicine they use were from today's they must have use morphine or opium to keep Jesus alive, and use portable CPR machines to resurrect Lazarus from the dead .....that myth deserve the life time immortal grammy awards still unmatched up to this day. No, fact and events have proof that beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and scientist relentless research in the origin of the universe and life especially the unique circumstances of human life why only humans have the intelligence all lead to a supreme creator for some scientist they believe it is the God-particle, for others it is beyond comprehension and for Christians it is God.

Lincoln is a devout Christian, Jefferson was a disgruntled Christian if he has live for another 10 years he would have started his own Christian sect or version.

 

I never claimed that. Most of the people I know are Christians, obviously, including my family.

I never said that the caliphates were "in cahoots". I said that after the First Crusade the Byzantines allied against the Crusader states because they didn't want to be conquered by these religious zealots. Which was a legitimate worry since they then sacked Constantinople in 1204.

Why do you have to lie in debates? I never claimed I hated all Christians, that's just an asinine whine. I do hate liars and people who claim absolute knowledge on a subject but are actually just making things up. And it's becoming patently clear that I'm more knowledgeable of these matters than you. Name one sect of Christians that were exterminated by Muslims.

Wow, you are off your rocker. I don't care about the Templars, I care about people making up false history. So, go read a damn medieval history book. You actually thought the Templar Knights were role models that started the Crusades? Just wow.

Fine, post one source that Bill Nye believes that a great flood happened at all.

Lol, in no way are my views extreme. You got caught lying and making up facts about people and about history. Stop whining and just leave with your tail between your legs.

 

Christ does not meet any Jewish expectation, Dave.

He certainly didn't fulfill the role of Elijah, which is to be the forerunner of the messiah.

If everyone adopted the idea that Christ was Elijah, it would completely destroy Christianity, because the philosophy of Christianity is that Jesus was the messiah.

Elijah is not and never was the messiah according to Jews.


You seriously can't expect that 1/3 of the planet who firmly believe that Jesus is God are going to abandon that theory because the Jews decide that Jesus is Elijah (not the messiah)?

Aint gonna happen.

The Jews ALREADY believe that Jesus aint the messiah. How has that changed Christian minds, so far?

It hasn't.


Your speculation is irrational.

 

Paul who was once the numero uno Christian hunter become the numero uno in spreading the words of God. He went to the gentiles to bring the word of God to them. Paul recognize the authority of Peter it is only their succeeding disciples and other anti Christians-Catholics who were creating the division.

You are again confusing Islam with the Catholic church, it was Islam leaders who destroyed every sources, the Catholic church up to now continue to examine all discoveries.

Maybe you can start here tons of informations:
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home

I am sure you wouldn't bother to read 50% of the materials including documents and dogmas about your questions and attacks on the Catholic church.

Those documents use to be in Alexandria, Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem and Constantinople before they were rescue and brought to the Vatican to be preserve for future references.

Again you are referring to the Muslims they destroy all koranic documents and market the only one koran that we see now that is why when sometime in the 1980s a great discovery was made scrolls of Islamic writings was discover hidden at the top of an old Mosques in Yemen after examination it was learn that there exist discrepancy between the present koran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNdvsLh128Q
[video=youtube;iNdvsLh128Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNdvsLh128Q[/video]

 

Delusion must be a common trait among the religious. Truth is thats all BS.

 

As I said in an earlier post DELUSION must be a common trait among the religious.

So they saw jesus huh.

No such man or city existed in the 1st Century.

Sorry the Bible does qualify as science fiction.

Argument from Authority. Argument from Perfection, not provable by you or anyone else. Don't know much about this jesus do you? Only what you have been spoon fed by the PULPIT.

 

The truth seems to be that even you are forcing the pharisees who support their non-scienitific and unfounded explanations of Genesis to lose membership among the younger people schooled in the same facts which Theistic Evolution preachers will be using to sell them the Bible in the future.

You and I are examples of the forces that will change the Institution of Religion forever, as science under rights what genesis says:


Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white (yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism does not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-wide floods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal life times, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shines through the Cosmos, etc) ...of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you as happened before The Reformation); ...and anoint thine eyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

 

There's that proving the Bible with itself agian....tell you what the wolf had big teeth in Little Red Riding Hood it's a fact the book said so it has to be real.

 

That is propaganda and a delusion for the gullible.

The is evidence for nazerath, but I believe the christians got it confused with the fact that Jesus had taken an oath to God and hence was a nazarite.

Nazarite = "one separated"






Here is archaeological evidence of Nazareth during Jesus' time - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8425094.stm

Jesus-era home found in Nazareth

Archaeologists in Israel say they have uncovered the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth believed to date back to the time of Jesus Christ.

The discovery sheds light on how people lived 2,000 years ago, when Christians believe Jesus was growing up there, Israel's Antiquities Authority said.

 

Yep.
Its called Sola Scripture.

The bible proves itself to be consistent with the correct interpretations and inconsistencies arise when the interpretations are wrong.

Added to this is the histroic facts that must be superimposed upon the past references and those prediction about future socioolgical changes that were to come after the writings.
Today, it seems fair and necessary to impose the facts of science upon the scriptures in order to assert that one correctly understands what they said and meant.

The verse above, Rev 3:18, was already valid warning just before the Protestant movement, and it is now again important advice to the churches.

 

Not mentioned or seen on any 1st or 4th Century pilgrim route maps.

View attachment 17983
4th Century Pilgrim Route
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

View attachment 17984
4th Century Roman Map
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Kind of odd that the Romans would totally disregard a city that they supposedly strung up one of its most famous people.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

"When they believed jesus was growing up? Lest I remind you this MYTH had no childhood. He disappears at 2, reappears at 12, then disappears for 30 years. "They believed" is not a statement of fact.

Funny out of all that and no one knew it existed. Origen the great 2nd Century apologists in all his letters with Celsus the Jew never mentions it and appears to know nothing about it. No one had any inkling the town even existed until Eusibeus mentions it 4th Century.

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

 

Quote Posted by Stagnant:

Er... No. An atheist's morality (that is, the morality of a given person who is an atheist) is whatever morality that atheist has applied to themselves. "Atheism's morality" is an oxymoron, as atheism makes no statements about morality, but let's not confuse the issue here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would an atheist have any morals? What for? If you atheist believe God doesn't exist, then what would compel any of you to have any morals? If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's behavior, you may as well just live as you please.

If there is no God, then there can be no objective standards of right and wrong. All we are confronted with is the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In a world without God, who is to say which values are right and which are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a saint?

The concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, "to say that something is wrong because . . . it is forbidden by God, is . . . perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong . . . even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. . . ."

The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone. In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.

So with all said, why would you atheists make claims that there was so much evil in the Old Testament times...or any other time for that matter? You don't believe that God exist and so it doesn't make sense for any of you to express your horror over any evil that goes on because as I've mentioned above good and evil do not exist in a universe without God. This should be the world view for all atheists.

 

For a society to function in any conceivable way, morals and laws are necessary. Sure, morals may not be necessary to be anti-social individual nomads who never see another human being, but that isn't how the majority of our time on the planet was spent. We are and always have been social animals.

Society, once again.

Sure it is. What makes God any of a better source of morals than humanity itself?

I'm sorry that you think that you need a parental figure constantly watching you to make sure you don't do anything bad, but most of us don't.

 

Jesus was not a Nazarite. Nazarites don't drink alcohol. John might have been, but Jesus was not.

 

Absence of evidence says nothing at all except one didn't find any.


Here is archaeological evidence of Nazareth during Jesus' time - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8425094.stm

Jesus-era home found in Nazareth

Archaeologists in Israel say they have uncovered the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth believed to date back to the time of Jesus Christ.

The discovery sheds light on how people lived 2,000 years ago, when Christians believe Jesus was growing up there, Israel's Antiquities Authority said.

 

Not going to respond to the same post twice.

THE SOUND OF SILENCE
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/silintro.htm

 

So how do you explain all the immoral christians????


Or are you one of thos who swear christians never do anything wrong?


I don't act like a decent human being out of fear of some make believe guy and what he'll do to me.....maybe some people NEED to have a fear of a Daddy figure to spank them when they're bad or they'd just go berserk because they're basically weak.............just sayin'

 

Before it use to be just delusion or illusion but now everything has become a reality and facts that is why history has written it all down so that men will remember and know how to distinguish what is delusion and what is reality, right now atheist like you have been trying hard to tear the books of facts and reality in order to promote your illusionary and delusionary world without God.

They accept the fact that Jesus Christ and God is for real you on the other hand is claiming base on your delusionary mind that some how some great directors and producer made Jesus up such feat that require the cooperation of the Roman Empire, Judaism hierarchy, people of Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine it is either you are telling the truth and that such great director and producer did existed as you claim or you are really out of this world and the reality is it is the later.

I just said it you are out of this world = delusion. or
[video=youtube;73OiRZf7DsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73OiRZf7DsM[/video]

The Bible was the book of inspiration for scientist in their quest and search for God the creator of the universe and man.

Argument has already been establish, in fact scientist too have discover their version of God they called it the God-particle. Of course you don't know anything about Jesus of Nazareth because you keep on reading fiction and mythology try the Bible or Encyclopaedia Britannica.

 

Why you keep changing your mind and story? First you call me a liar in fact what do you call a person who keep flip flopping??? answer is= Liar, mind you it is from you not me, so first you need to make up your mind. I will start this one question because I don't want you to get mixed up; did or didn't the Muslim leadership work in tandem with the Christian West or the Crusades which you claim that Western Christian did nothing for 600 years or that the Byzantine allied with the Muslims and later the Muslims turn against the Byzantine so what is it?

 

Byzantine isn't a part of the West, my God, man. There is a reason it was called the Eastern Roman Empire. You also need to learn how to type grammatically correct sentences. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about probably 65% of the time because your sentences are run-ons and all your ideas are jumbled together via random words. You seem to be asking two questions, but I am unsure if you really are. What does the fact that the entire Western states of Christendom not responding to Muslim conquests for over 450 years (sorry, I conflated the number time by about 150 years) have to do with the alliance between Saladin and the Byzantine Empire in the Third Crusade?

 

Apparently I know more than you. As you cannot answer why it was not on any pilgrimage maps of the 1st and 4th Century. Encyclopaedia Britannica, this is your only source for your MYTH? Well let's see what it says about your jesus and these so called Gospels:

Enclopedia Britanica says that " Christians count (133) contrary opinions of various authorties concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."

The Encloypedia Biblica states that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Fact is there is no Forensic, Documentary or Archeological evidence this character ever existed. He was a construct of the church.

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

Of course you aren't because your attempt failed to discredit the New Testament and you intend to keep spreading the lies that there was no Nazareth in 32AD and hence the Bible lies.

But the Truth is y-that from here on, you will belying since the ARCHEOLOGICAL hard evidence has been pointed out to you.

 

Uh, I'd like to point something out. Just because there was a small Hamlet around 2,000 years ago does't make it the Nazareth in the Bible. According to archaeological finds, there was a funerary and cult center near modern day Nazereth that dated back 9,000 years ago. Was this Nazareth? No, it was just an ancient site near Nazareth. Could Nazareth been a literal place at the time of Jesus' life? Maybe. But it certainly wasn't anything special as it wasn't reflected in any Jewish sources until the third century AD. Also, it seems that the archaeological finds of ancient Nazareth don't match up with the description of the city's position in Luke.

Luke 4:29: [And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.

Since the historic Nazareth was found in the valley region, that does strike me as fishy.

 

I'll go with th the conclusions of the archaeologists on this one, and their best guess in the name of good manners on many items open to the same unfounded denials in regard to the Old Testament.

The use of an absence of evidence to attack the Old Testament or the New is scurrilous at best and merely anti-christ otherwise.

People with an axe to grind against the New Testament, Jesus, and Christianity will ALWAYS disregard the doubt that their WAS a Nazareth, and raise questions that suppose other meaning could be assigned to these archaeological finds merely in ordwr to discount hard evidence against their own SOFT denigrations.

Here is more archaeological testimony that adds to the latest find:


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/nazarethlaw.html
Michael Green [Man Alive, 1968, p. 36] cites a secular source of early origin that bears testimony to Jesus' empty tomb.

This piece of evidence "is called the Nazareth Inscription, after the town where it was found.

It is an imperial edict, belonging either to the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) or of Claudius (A.D. 41-54). And it is an invective, backed with heavy sanctions, against meddling around with tombs and graves! It looks very much as if the news of the empty tomb had got back to Rome in a garbled form (Pilate would have had to report: and he would obviously have said that the tomb had been rifled).
This edict, it seems, is the imperial reaction."