Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
You're presuming he existed.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Please explain the contradiction when using all the gospel accounts.
Fast forward to the 7 minute mark:
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
"A person that carries a cat home by the tail will receive information that will always be useful to him." Mark Twain
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
Except the "authentic Pauline" letters were written before the Gospels......
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
What I mean is I am focusing on the gospels themselves, and am not yet considering for the moment Paul role in the early church, that came after the events described in them.
"A person that carries a cat home by the tail will receive information that will always be useful to him." Mark Twain
It takes more “blind faith” to claim Jesus never existed and a lot of denial of historical evidence than to claim the opposite. As for me, I think the preponderance of the historical evidence points to the reality of not only Jesus’ life, but also his resurrection. And if he really did raise from the dead his personhood and who he really is, is the most profound question all of humanity must come to grips with. If he really “chose to lay his life down and to take it up again” as the historical record seems to indicate, it was the single most amazing and terrifying truth of the universe with awe inspiring implications. A man who has no desire to “wrestle” with the implications of his own sin, and guilt, will quickly form a world view that refuses to acknowledge a personal Holy God or any kind of “accountability”. That is just the simple psychological result of cognitive dissonance. For me and my life, I have chosen to embrace the historical Jesus Christ as my risen savior, who’s death on the cross atoned fully and completely for my sin (with which I still struggle, as long as I live). I am fully aware that no amount of evidence or rational argument will pursuade a non believer to adopt the faith, as that only comes through the spirit drawing a man to Him. But for those, open to the truth of Jesus Christ, there Is no shortage of rational arguments to support such a descision. My life was transformed by Christ, and my family is the beneficiary.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
Except the "authentic Pauline" letters were written before the Gospels......
Sniper, Not that it is relevant, but please give the Pauline letters and their corresponding date of authorship, and maybe just a sentence or two to support your theory on the dating of each one.
A good read on the dating of the gospels. Evidence seems to indicate that Luke and Mark were probably written some time in th 50’s or 60’s as they mention nothing about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. and Luke mentions nothing of Paul’s death which would have been some where around 65-69 AD.
The Gospels remind me of 4 different investigative reports, written by two eye witnesses and two who based their reports on eye witnesses and ultimately all 4 led to the same conclusion. That Jesus was the son of the living God, was crucified and physically rose from the dead.
It has not been established that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Plus there is an overlap, the later gospels copied heavily from Mark, which in turn is based on word of mouth, and possibly earlier unknown manuscripts.
... Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Paul claimed to be a legitimate eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus despite not having seen him, scripture ( Acts 9 ) simply says he saw a flash of light, then fell to the ground and heard a voice, while the other men travelling with Paul heard no such voice and saw no Jesus, only the light.
When Paul got up from the ground and then opened his eyes, he also saw no Jesus, and also found that he was blind for some days following.
Paul chose to subjectively interpret that light flash experience as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus, thus one would have to consider how influenced he was by his own credulity or wishful thinking.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
If you'll follow Paul's testimonies about how he was selected by the LORD as apostle to the Gentiles, you'd see that he refers to time spent in Arabia, some thirteen years or so before beginning the greater part of his work. In that time, back at the true Mt. Sinai (in Arabia) as with Moses and Elijah, Paul received from the LORD Jesus what he was to say. The journey to Jerusalem he refers to was to explain his "gospel" to the Jerusalem-based church, still rooted in temple-based worship and observance of Jewish law. The Damascus Road experience and subsequent time spent in blindness until Ananias prayed over him (as instructed by the LORD) isn't the whole story of Paul's apostleship -- he saw the LORD, then spent years with Him before ministry.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
If the bible was "fact" there would be no contradictions in it,and only one version could exist all over the world. A few hundred years ago you could be thrown in jail or even killed for believing the earth was round, or not the center of the universe. Again to "believers" ignorance is BLISS.
"If not, the prophecy of dying and going to hell will be experienced by you as well."
Prove it without quoting anything in the Bible.
So most people will not have after life experience and then be able to report back on what they saw. Even if they did no one would still believe it anyway unless they could personally experience it. It's obvious that from personal human experience we can neither prove nor disprove any after life. This is why we base our claims on a book that shown its reliability in so many other areas and believe that it has far more credentials to address this topic than any of us here who might speculate about it.
The truth is the truth, with or without the Bible.
heaven and hell exist in your mind only because you read it in a book, or you started believing someone who told you those places exist.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact.
So for christians the resurrection of Jesus is not based on their FAITH / BELIEF..? If christians knew it as FACT , why would they need to trust in their FAITH..?
def. of faith: = strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
PROOF is needed to demonstrate a claim as FACT ..Thus FAITH cannot be FACT based, because facts require proof - if you have proof establishing fact ,then its not faith.
Christians with their lack of proof thus does not permit them to establish fact, and if they did have such it would nullify their need for faith. Christians overwhelmingly rely on their faith simply because faith [or beliefs] don't require facts, evidence, proof or truth.
There is some circular reasoning here. On the same criteria you cannot prove that Jesus never rose from the dead. You were not there--you did not guard the tomb to confirm the presence of the body till decay. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence. We have a strong faith in the certainty of because of the reasonably indisputable evidence from the historical record.
Likewise: 1. we have reasonably indisputable historical evidence from various sources that Jesus was crucified in a public event 2. we have indisputable evidence that some of the early believers "claimed" that He also arose because they were eyewitness of His resurrected body 3. they spread the stories of their resurrection claims throughout the whole world 4. the world was hostile to the resurrection claims of the early Christians 5. the apostles and early Christians were put to death for making these claims and promoting the teachings of Christ 6. the early Christians did not have the favor or aid of the government to protect their faith 7. the story continued to spread and grow and could not be dismissed 8. all the events surrounding the death and crucifixion were in the gospel accounts and could be investigated and disproven 9. the critics and enemies of Christianity were never successful in refuting those claims and the church grew 10. Diocletion ordered all the Scriptures apprehended and burnt and Christians executed if they would not recant their faith 11. But the story grew to the point where the succeeding Roman Emperor Constantine officially embraced Christianity. While this also began to introduce some corruptions into the church it still establishes the fact that the basic story of Jesus was validated on the basis of evidence. 12. Emporer Julian comes along and tries to make intellectual arguments to dismiss the resurrection of Christ. His arguments fail and the story grows even further.
Friends, in the early ages of Christianity when it was being persecuted, everyone had access to the data needed to refute the resurrection claims--more data than we have today. Eye-witnesses could be interviewed, stories of the gospels could be investigated, the public crucifixion under Pontius Pilate could be verified. The man Jesus was crucified by the Romans and guarded because Jesus said in advance He would rise again--what happened to the body? The only thing the critics needed to do was prove that Christ never arose.
Our faith is based on indisputable evidence. The Bible defines our faith as such:
Quote
Now faith is the reality (or assurance or substance as some translations say) of what is hoped for, the proof (or evidence as some translations say) of what is not seen Heb.11:1
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence. Unbelief is based upon blind faith that refuses to acknowledge the testimony of reasonable evidence because of a strong prejudice against moral absolutes.
