The mythical Jesus

[♦ ficino ♦]

'cept for Stephen

[trashy]

Brother AUB,

 

I didn't find your explanation convincing, and I've never been given a good reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. I actually don't really give a damn whether a historical Jesus lived or not since I don't believe the religious claims made about him by Christians anyway. My views on the historical Jesus come largely from the Jesus Seminar, and from research on the issue done over the last several years.

Isn't the Jesus Seminar branching off into studying the historicity of Jesus now? I found their breakdown of the history of early NT writings very fascinating. So I take it that you think the original book of quotes originated w/ a historical person?

[Checkmate]

I think I definitely qualify for being a non-faith-based follower of Christ!  My personal studies have alligned me with much more of a 'metaphysical' interpretation of Jesus...

Sorry, but THIS has to qualify as The Most Bizarre Statement A "Christian" Could Ever Say!

 

"A non-faith-based follower of Christ"? What the hell is THAT?!? How can you follow Christ APART from "faith"? That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

"Without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God", to paraphrase Hebrews 11:6.

 

"By grace we are saved through FAITH", Ephesians 2:8.

 

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by FAITH", Romans 3:28.

 

And so forth and so on.

 

"A non-faith-based follower of Christ"? No such animal. You may as well claim to be an atheistic believer in God! (See definition of OXYMORON please.)

 

Come on, Amanda! If this is TRULY your position, as you say it is, then YOU are no more a "Christian™" than I am! You're an unbeliever, a heretic, a gnostic or an apostate. But certainly NOT a Christian™.

 

As they say, "Parking your bed in the garage doesn't make it a car." Sheesh!

[Antlerman]

The argument for a purely mythical Jesus is very compelling, but I have questions I will need to look into further before having a stronger opinion. One point I read that someone may wish to respond to was that those 2nd century apologists who were clearly of the historical Jesus camp spoke against many other forms of Christian "heresy" of their day, but are claimed to have never mentioned any group that believed Jesus was not a historical figure. That in itself is not an argument for an historical Jesus, but would raise the question that if their historical Jesus view was in competition with the purely Logos, non-historical view of Jesus, you would think it would get some mention. Would they attack Gnosticism but never mention the primary group that Christianity had evolved out of?

 

Is there some information anyone has that will help addresses that argument?

 

Here’s the link where I read that and other challenges to Doherty’s theory:

 

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/...were%20received

[Amanda]

I think I definitely qualify for being a non-faith-based follower of Christ!  My personal studies have alligned me with much more of a 'metaphysical' interpretation of Jesus...

Sorry, but THIS has to qualify as The Most Bizarre Statement A "Christian" Could Ever Say!

 

"A non-faith-based follower of Christ"? What the hell is THAT?!? How can you follow Christ APART from "faith"? That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mr. Grinch, allow me to clarify... it is my belief that the reference for someone to respond that is 'NOT faith-based' is someone that is not affiliated with the ilk of Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Withess... etc., as these groups are based on a particular 'denominational faith'. I am not in allign with any denomination that I know, the closest being perhaps Unity Church. And you thought that I was making a claim to have NO faith? ... I can see where you must of thought I had just gone way too far over the deep end.

[Checkmate]

Sorry, but THIS has to qualify as The Most Bizarre Statement A "Christian" Could Ever Say!

 

"A non-faith-based follower of Christ"? What the hell is THAT?!? How can you follow Christ APART from "faith"? That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

Mr. Grinch, allow me to clarify... it is my belief that the reference for someone to respond that is 'NOT faith-based' is someone that is not affiliated with the ilk of Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Withess... etc., as these groups are based on a particular 'denominational faith'. I am not in allign with any denomination that I know, the closest being perhaps Unity Church. And you thought that I was making a claim to have NO faith? ... I can see where you must of thought I had just gone way too far over the deep end.

 

Oh...Okay den. You might want to come up with a better way of defining WHO you are. Non-denominational USUALLY can cover it. However, you might still have to distance yourself from the Charismatics as well.

 

Whatever. I think I understand now. Thanks for the reply.

[Amanda]

Like what?  Freedom of thought was rampant in Greek society of the day.  Unless you badmouthed Rome, no-one cared.  Nothing of the teachings attributed to Jesus is revolutionary in the slightest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spamandham, IMHO, this is not the case. Greek society was not all that rampant in freedom of thought! I don't think that has ever been the case till much more recently. People from Socratese to Galileo to on and on have been persecuted for their beliefs that were in contradiction with the well established comfort zones of the times. Additionally, those people in power were there as a result of a 'class' system and their self elitist (legalistic) positioning strategies. It seems to me that Jesus was gaining popular influence in his social revolutionary thrust of equality for all, in direct conflict with the status-quo. IF there were no problems with Jesus, why were there people executed for their beliefs in alliance with him? Do you think Jesus was enthusiastic about bowing down to Ceasar?

 

Those sites I posted earlier were of collaborating documentation to that of the Bible, and to the perserving of information handed down by these attesting witnesses of Jesus by those that were there at the time. These historians had a 'name' at stake as historians! BTW, I still emphasize that some of these people were NOT even Christian... and I sense that they had no other agenda than to record the truth. Also, the litererary abilities (writing, preserving, duplicating) of these masses then were TREMENDOUSLY more diminished in many, many ways than that of our present day! No comparison of expectations!

 

Spamandham, here is some brand new evidence, claiming to be the oldest evidence... dating to 20 BCE, attributing to the validity of Jesus... found on CNN at this site:

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/

 

and then from the Lost Years of Jesus, supposedly written by those that knew Jesus, at this site:

 

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

 

Spamandham, it just seems to me that if one took into consideration ALL there is to examine about his authenticity... while I know that I'm slanted with my bias... I still think it is a farther reach to call him a myth than a real man at this point.

[Brother Jeff]

Spamandham, here is some brand new evidence, claiming to be the oldest evidence... dating to 20 BCE, attributing to the validity of Jesus... found on CNN at this site:

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/

The James Ossuary, which this appears to be, is known to be a fake, Amanda. See these links:

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-1...uary-usat_x.htm

[Amanda]

Here are several more sites dealing with the utter hopelessness of Xtian fundie literalist dogma, contrived BS, and the "inerrant" "word" of "perfect" biblegod.

 

This link has good discussion, as well as including some things by Doherty

http://home.freeuk.com/jesusmyth/index.html

 

A massive site by Dr. Mike Magee---lots of material

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for sharing these sites with us, yet it is a perspective that 'I' see nothing enlightening. I'm sorry Karl... FWIW, I see these people as the ultimate spin masters! (Not quite good enough to make it in Washington, DC... but close IMO) Just reading a paragraph or two was enough for me to see through this. Maybe this is fanatics in one direction against fanatics on the other side? It just doesn't come across as being genuine in the search for the truth, to me. It is clearly not how I see the Bible, and they don't seem to attempt to consider another perspective but their own.

'Forgery in Christianity' by Joseph Wheless:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ity/index.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C'mon Karl... it seems to me this is implicating how hundreds of years after the initiation of the NT Bible, that others translated the Bible while still giving credit to what they perceived as the original authors... and this is forgery?

....I think I definitely qualify for being a non-faith-based follower of Christ!....

OK then....here is material you may find interesting..

 

The complete on-line Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn library, including 'Who Is This King of Glory?' and other commentary on Esotericism:

http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhhh yes, I too live in Florida. Karl, this person needs to update his material. He claims that Terry Shiavo was attempting to be murdered as a guise for 'death with dignity' and that her 'vegetable' brain state was a lie. Well... she died, they did a detailed autopsy of her brain... and guess what these scientists found? Yep, she was clearly in a 'vegetative' state. Why would anyone go past there, with this website's author's opinions, if his arguments don't reflect current scientific findings? I will say that the whole Terry Shiavo situation was a very emotional issue here.

 

Karl, what I really think is important... is not IF Jesus is a real person... but of his teachings' insights and the implication it can have on one's life. He, at least, seems to be up there with Buddha, Gandhi, and others. If Jesus was a Myth, and those authors wrote a book attributing their own work to a mythical entity, that then became the best seller of the world for all times... wouldn't that be crazy? How could such a conspiracy endured to this day? Even more concerning, is why?

[Amanda]

The James Ossuary, which this appears to be, is known to be a fake, Amanda. See these links:

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-1...uary-usat_x.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Brother Jeff, thanks for these insights! I can see that many of you found this archeological evidence as no surprise... yet did not share it before I did...

 

Brother Jeff, although these links seem to take into account these apparently two different handwritings on the ossuary, I don't think that automatically discredits the whole finding! What seems to be the best argument is this (copied from the first link):

 

"Conclusion

If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then somebody has to explain why there are two hands, two different scripts, two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers. They could also explain where the frame has gone.

 

The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob bar Yosef, probably sometime during the Herodian period."

 

And I think that 'I' could come up with logical explanations, to me, for all these contentions. I am also curious as to why CNN has not seemed to have recognized this argument against their story? Anyway, I'm sure one sees it all from their filtered lenses they have, in which to see.

[bob]

I am also curious as to why CNN has not seemed to have recognized this argument against their story? Anyway, I'm sure one sees it all from their filtered lenses they have, in which to see.

Dearest Amanda, the CNN story you posted was from 3 years ago, not "brand new evidence" as you stated. And it would seem that you are definitely looking through filtered lenses because you immediately pass on what you believe to be evidences that supports your beliefs, when in fact, they do not.

[spamandham]

... it is my belief that the reference for someone to respond that is 'NOT faith-based' is someone that is not affiliated with the ilk of Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Withess...

 

The original request was for a non-faith-based response. Anyone is capable of providing such a response, including Baptists et. al. I just didn't want it to turn into an discussion about scriptures.

[Brother Jeff]

Isn't the Jesus Seminar branching off into studying the historicity of Jesus now? I found their breakdown of the history of early NT writings very fascinating. So I take it that you think the original book of quotes originated w/ a historical person?

Yes, I think they are (that sounds right), but I honestly don't keep up with them. The issue of the historicity of Jesus interests me, but only casually. I honestly haven't seen the Jesus Seminar's breakdown of the history of the early NT writings, so I can't comment, but I bet it is interesting! I do think that Jesus was a historical person. Most biblical scholars believe that a historical Jesus lived. It's true that majorities don't determine truth, but still, I don't see any reason why I should disagree with people much more educated on this subject than I am.

[spamandham]

Most biblical scholars believe that a historical Jesus lived. It's true that majorities don't determine truth, but still, I don't see any reason why I should disagree with people much more educated on this subject than I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd say it's important to know why they think that before drawing a conclusion, unless you simply don't care enough to find out or you think it is beyond you to comprehend.

 

In all fields, there is a tendency to gravitate toward the popular position, right or wrong. Unpopular positions must not be dismissed simply due to lack of popularity, lest you find yourself guilty of what amounts to a faith position. If you can dismiss your preconceptions and examine the evidence anew, the mythical Jesus position is compelling, though not perfect.

[Amanda]

The James Ossuary, which this appears to be, is known to be a fake, Amanda. See these links:

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-1...uary-usat_x.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Brother Jeff... Thanks for the info... I was going to post a site by USA Today confirming that the patina seemed to be authentic... yet your USA Today post is more current than the one I was going to reference, which seems to concur that it is leaning towards forgery... but mostly based on what appears to be a second engraver adding to the first.

 

It seems these main issues they are in disagreement, is that of the second inscription (claiming to be the 'brother of Jesus') was written much later, the site was illegally escavated, and some burial rituals were different, yet it still seems the ossuary, bones, and other aspects could make it POSSIBLE to be the James (Jacob?) the brother of Jesus, doesn't it? (...I think that this evidence just proves it can't be authenticated either way at this point) Could this critical scrutiny be based on skepticism of man's alterior motives and drive for capital gains on producing such a monumental find? Why would anyone lie about this otherwise? Do you know who (the discoverers?) is suspect for the alledged misrepresentation of the inscription?

[Amanda]

Dearest Amanda, the CNN story you posted was from 3 years ago, not "brand new evidence" as you stated.  And it would seem that you are definitely looking through filtered lenses because you immediately pass on what you believe to be evidences that supports your beliefs, when in fact, they do not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bob, you're right... it does not qualify for 'brand new evidence'. Discussing the validity of Jesus with a friend, they mentioned there is 'brand new' evidence concerning the ossuary... then finding the site on CNN... I just thought it was very recently put there, and am now amazed that CNN would keep the site up for so long without revision!

 

Hey Bob, I meant nothing derrogatory to YOU or ANYONE else about 'seeing things through filtered lenses'. Please accept my apology if that communication came across to you or anyone here as negative!!! IMHO, we ALL have a tendency to perceive and interpret new information based on our own personal previous learning experiences, usually without realizing it... yes, me too. I included a site resource for inspection and clarification... and thanks for these responses. I KNEW no one here would just take it without question! Especially my side? Although, as I've said in another post, I'm not sure this find is authentic or a forgery either... yet I am now LESS confident in the authenticity.

[spamandham]

Could this critical scrutiny be based on skepticism of man's alterior motives and drive for capital gains on producing such a monumental find? Why would anyone lie about this otherwise?

 

Pious fruad. This has been rampant in the Church since at least Eusebius, but more likely, since the very inception of Christianity, just as it exists in numerous other faith systems.

 

Relics were an important part of the Church for most of its 2000 year history to convince the credulous faithfull. Even in the last 100 years relics played a role in world history (the Spear of Destiny and its role in WWII).

 

The Shroud of Turin is a case in point of a well documented ancient fraud. Are we to believe it is the only such case? Fraud is the default assumption after all the documented cases of false relics and lack of even a single plausible relic.

[bob]

Hey Bob, I meant nothing derrogatory to YOU or ANYONE else about 'seeing things through filtered lenses'. Please accept my apology if that communication came across to you or anyone here as negative!!! IMHO, we ALL have a tendency to perceive and interpret new information based on our own personal previous learning experiences, usually without realizing it... yes, me too.

Absolutely no offence taken Amanda. And of course, as a skeptic, I admit that I will immediately be skeptical of "evidence" presented by believers in support of their position. Why?, well, because every bit of "evidence" I have ever read has later turned out to be useless to their cause.

Amanda, as I have stated numerous times in the past, when talking to believers (I was one for 25 years), if believers would admit that they believe in their God simply because they want to believe in their God, we could then move on to more meaningful dialogues.

[Checkmate]

Amanda, as I have stated numerous times in the past, when talking to believers (I was one for 25 years), if believers would admit that they believe in their God simply because they want to believe in their God, we could then move on to more meaningful dialogues.

Quite agree, Bob.

 

Stop trying to PROVE your faith in Jesus/God. It can't be done. Just admit that you believe because you WANT to believe. There is NO "evidence that demands a verdict". Any such "evidence" would neatly nullify "faith".

 

I have always said this about the Apostle Paul: HE WAS NOT A MAN OF FAITH! He couldn't have been, since he had so much "evidence" of "God"/"Jesus".

 

After all, how much "faith" does it take to believe when you've SEEN the "resurrected and glorified Jesus"? How much faith does it take when you've been ushered into a level of heaven and heard unspeakable things and seen visions? How much faith do you need when the Holy Spook talks to you on a regular basis, giving you step-by-step instructions to follow?

 

If I had had THIS kind of help when I was a Xian, then I would never have left! Who needs "faith" when you have PROOF? Isn't "faith" the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen"? (Hebrews 11:1)

 

Stop with the "logical, verifiable proof" attempts, Xians. You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

[Amanda]

Amanda, as I have stated numerous times in the past, when talking to believers (I was one for 25 years), if believers would admit that they believe in their God simply because they want to believe in their God, we could then move on to more meaningful dialogues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bob, point well taken! Of course the opposite is true in proving your side ... yet I have come to understand to prove a negative... God doesn't exist... when there is no 'tangible scientific' evidence to prove he does, makes your side seem easier and makes my side much more challenging. I can clearly see that... yet are we all to be OPEN minded to possibilities to some degree?

 

I have learned TREMENDOUSLY more about God here, and have refined my thinking to accommodate what seems to be new perceptions of truth I've acquired. I was once offered a philosophy from my teacher many years ago... "do I want to be right, or do I want to know the truth?"

 

As I've said, what is important to me are these TEACHINGS attributed to a man named Jesus! They lift my spirit and allow me to enjoy life to a much higher degree! These teachings stand on their own merit! Yes, I also have a divine respect for Buddhism, Hinduism, Suffism, Judaism, Atheism, and many more. The question I have for anyone here is why would anyone come up with these positive life altering concepts, that made major contributions to the best selling book of all times, that changed the world as nothing before it, and attribute their insights to a mythical being they call Jesus? What would justify such an elaborate, complicated, supremely executed conspiracy that seems to endure in the face of enormous contentions?

[bob]

Bob, point well taken! Of course the opposite is true in proving your side ... yet I have come to understand to prove a negative... God doesn't exist... when there is no 'tangible scientific' evidence to prove he does, makes your side seem easier and makes my side much more challenging. I can clearly see that... yet are we all to be OPEN minded to possibilities to some degree?

I am completely open minded to the possibility of there being a supreme being, a creator, a "God" if you will. I would prefer it not be the God of the bible though. I would like my god to be a bit less cruel.

 

I was once offered a philosophy from my teacher many years ago... "do I want to be right, or do I want to know the truth?"

I agree with that statement completely.

 

As I've said, what is important to me are these TEACHINGS attributed to a man named Jesus!

I can't separate the teachings of Jesus from the rest of the New Testament. The idea of hell is repulsive to me. The thought of sending a person to hell because they do not believe in Jesus is quite disturbing.

 

They lift my spirit and allow me to enjoy life to a much higher degree!

All they did to me was point out my many inadequacies. I was not a happy believer.

 

The question I have for anyone here is why would anyone come up with these positive life altering concepts, that made major contributions to the best selling book of all times, that changed the world as nothing before it...

History proves that the changes that occurred as a result of this "best selling book of all times" were far from "positive". Do you ignore all the death and destruction that has been perpetrated over the centuries as a result of faith in your book?

 

...and attribute their insights to a mythical being they call Jesus? What would justify such an elaborate, complicated, supremely executed conspiracy that seems to endure in the face of enormous contentions?

How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the minds of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.

-- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

[Checkmate]

The question I have for anyone here is why would anyone come up with these positive life altering concepts, that made major contributions to the best selling book of all times, that changed the world as nothing before it, and attribute their insights to a mythical being they call Jesus? What would justify such an elaborate, complicated, supremely executed conspiracy that seems to endure in the face of enormous contentions? 

Amanda, have you ever heard of a PIOUS FRAUD?

 

Pious fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

A pious fraud is a term used by skeptics for people who perform fraud in religion (for example, a pious fraud fakes miracles or psychic surgery) because of a sincere belief that the end justifies the means in religious matters.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary reports the phrase was first used in English in 1678. Edward Gibbon was particularly fond of the phrase, using it often in his monumental and controversial work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in which he criticized the likelihood of some of the martyrs and miracles of the early Christian church.

 

William Howells wrote about shamans that they know that their tricks are imposition but that all who studied them agree that they really believe in their power to deal with spirits. According to Howells, their main purpose is an honest one and they believe that this justifies the means of hoodwinking his followers in minor technical matters.

 

It has ever been my contention, even from childhood, that the ENTIRE purpose of religion is mind control and behavior modification. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to "police" a growing population, it became necessary to create the "pious fraud" of a divine watchdog/Bogey Man. In this way the people would more or less police themselves. Very cute. And VERY effective. "The ends justifying the means."

 

As to how and why it got so complicated and elaborate? Generation after generation of primitive nimrods ADDING their own spin doctoring to the sacred "scriptures" to promote their own personal agendas. THAT is the answer.

 

If you would care to examine church history, you will notice how church doctrine is NOT static, but is fluid. Changing from era to era to conform to the political and social climate of the ruling day. You see the exact same thing occurring under your very nose. Which also explains the 40,000 plus Xian denominations.

 

Religion is nothing but a political/sociological tool. It has NOTHING to do with "god".

[Antlerman]

As I've said, what is important to me are these TEACHINGS attributed to a man named Jesus! They lift my spirit and allow me to enjoy life to a much higher degree! These teachings stand on their own merit! Yes, I also have a divine respect for Buddhism, Hinduism, Suffism, Judaism, Atheism, and many more. The question I have for anyone here is why would anyone come up with these positive life altering concepts, that made major contributions to the best selling book of all times, that changed the world as nothing before it, and attribute their insights to a mythical being they call Jesus? What would justify such an elaborate, complicated, supremely executed conspiracy that seems to endure in the face of enormous contentions? 

Amanda, I appreciate what you're saying about the meaningful content of the sayings, but there are explanations that are more reasonable than some sort of mystical explanation. One example of a way to look at this was stated on the original site posted in this thread from Earl Doherty:

 

"All sectarian societies tend to read the present back into the past; they personify their own activities in great founding events and heroic progenitors. The very existence of the sayings collection, the product of the evolving community, would have invited attribution to a specific originating and authoritative figure. Such a record set in a glorified past is known as a "foundation document," a universal phenomenon of sectarian expression. (Figures such as Confucius, Lao-Tsu, Lycurgus of Sparta, the medieval Swiss William Tell, as well as other obscure sectarian figures of the ancient world, are examples of founder figures who have come to be regarded as likely non-existent.)"

 

Now this is not to argue whether Jesus was a real person originally or just a pure myth, but attributing philosophical sayings to someone is not necessarily some grand devious conspiracy, but rather a fairly normal product of human society. It's happened many times in history, and we should be careful not to let our cultural familiarity with the Jesus figure obscure reasonable objectivity.

 

BTW, when people argue for the credibility of the Jesus stories by citing it's endurance against opposition, or by citing the actions of self-sacrifice and even martyrdom of individuals who promoted it, it is hardly a case for the truth of the story. It speaks about those people's convictions (or stubborness), not the validity of what they believe in. How many young idealists are blowing themselves up and justifying killing innocent people for their religious faiths today in what they believe is a holy war for God? Does this make what they believe true, because they're willing to die or kill for it? Of course not. The only thing that reveals is the power of fanatical beliefs.

[zfunkman]

Quite agree, Bob.

 

Stop trying to PROVE your faith in Jesus/God.  It can't be done.  Just admit that you believe because you WANT to believe.  There is NO "evidence that demands a verdict".  Any such "evidence" would neatly nullify "faith".

 

I have always said this about the Apostle Paul: HE WAS NOT A MAN OF FAITH!  He couldn't have been, since he had so much "evidence" of "God"/"Jesus".

 

After all, how much "faith" does it take to believe when you've SEEN the "resurrected and glorified Jesus"?  How much faith does it take when you've been ushered into a level of heaven and heard unspeakable things and seen visions?  How much faith do you need when the Holy Spook talks to you on a regular basis, giving you step-by-step instructions to follow?

 

If I had had THIS kind of help when I was a Xian, then I would never have left!  Who needs "faith" when you have PROOF?  Isn't "faith" the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen"?  (Hebrews 11:1)

 

Stop with the "logical, verifiable proof" attempts, Xians.  You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point Mr. Grinch,

I've brought the subject of "faith" up before too. If it was "true", no one would need "faith". None of the main characters in the bible, new or old testiment, had any faith. "God" actually talked to them. They knew "god" to exist, to be real. Basically, "god" has only really spoken to a few people. EVER. And there is no proof other than "the bible says so". So in reality, any christian who says they know christianity is "true", are lying. Its either True or you need Faith. You can't have it both ways. Once you know its true, faith is no longer required.

[zfunkman]

Bob, point well taken! Of course the opposite is true in proving your side ... yet I have come to understand to prove a negative... God doesn't exist... when there is no 'tangible scientific' evidence to prove he does, makes your side seem easier and makes my side much more challenging. I can clearly see that... yet are we all to be OPEN minded to possibilities to some degree?

 

I have learned TREMENDOUSLY more about God here, and have refined my thinking to accommodate what seems to be new perceptions of truth I've acquired. I was once offered a philosophy from my teacher many years ago... "do I want to be right, or do I want to know the truth?"

 

As I've said, what is important to me are these TEACHINGS attributed to a man named Jesus! They lift my spirit and allow me to enjoy life to a much higher degree! These teachings stand on their own merit! Yes, I also have a divine respect for Buddhism, Hinduism, Suffism, Judaism, Atheism, and many more. The question I have for anyone here is why would anyone come up with these positive life altering concepts, that made major contributions to the best selling book of all times, that changed the world as nothing before it, and attribute their insights to a mythical being they call Jesus? What would justify such an elaborate, complicated, supremely executed conspiracy that seems to endure in the face of enormous contentions? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of really stupid, gullible people.