Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

^No, it wont make sense them. Thats why they believe the way they believe.

Quite frankly, while it is important to being a Christian, creation, I dont find it to be the backbone of my faith nor do I find it pushing me to be who I am supposed to be. I find that if anything, it solidifies a few points and its very important for a few other ideals expressed by Jesus.

Atheists and agnostics and what-have-you love to get on this point because they have their theories and we have our beleifs - however neither is cold hard fact. One is faith, another, is a man made theory. So its essentially a stalemate.

i believe in god but i dont practice any specific religion

http://www.biology-online.org/10/1_first_life.htm
^^This pretty much sums up my view on how life started here on earth. If you actually take the time to read it ( it's not even that much reading), it should make complete sense. I look at the begining of life as something that was very random and extremely unlikely to happen, but thats what makes it all so amazing. Also, I find it much more interesting to believe that all of this happened then to just think that humans showed up on the earth one day a few thousand years ago.

[coolbeans326]

Its plenty fair as you have a choice right now.

I'm not so sure... Why is it that I was born into a middle class christian family while some poor person gets born into a muslim 3rd world country, where it the belief gets pounded into him, where he believes his faith correct much as I feel my faith is correct. But its also because of problems like these why we as Christians should help them, and in time maybe they'll come to have the christian faith. But I don't think it should ever be about converting, but about works, and have your works do all the changing in some one's heart. Otherwise you'll just become one of those street preachers who not many listen to. (No offense to anyone, I just think that helping some one out goes a lot further than what talking does.[;)])

Originally posted by guitarplayer673

http://www.biology-online.org/10/1_first_life.htm
^^This pretty much sums up my view on how life started here on earth. If you actually take the time to read it ( it's not even that much reading), it should make complete sense. I look at the begining of life as something that was very random and extremely unlikely to happen, but thats what makes it all so amazing. Also, I find it much more interesting to believe that all of this happened then to just think that humans showed up on the earth one day a few thousand years ago.

I just read that little article, but I don't see how it explains how life started and how the universe started. The history or belief of your religion just starts in the middle of something, but it forgets the universe and planets, who created that? Who decided how or when or why to build the universe? I don't know, you have your belief and I respect that, so if I'm way out of line with what I think you believe in, just tell me.

^^I too find the theories around creation interesting. Its neat to see what humans come up with as their theory on how we all began but its always still limited to our own knowledge which I dont think is that great. If we only use 10-12% of our brains then how can we think we even remotely have a grasp on something as grand as the worlds beginnings?

I dont like to leave life to chance or randomness.

Plus you make Creation sound so boring...so much so it makes me think youve never read creation or the bible. Just showed up? Theres so much more depth and beauty to creation. Plus there are so many links all throughout scripture that point to creation and the mysteries and beauties behind it. There is also a certain intimacy behind creation and how God fashioned everything.

Its not just a "poof - here it is. poof - here it is." kind of thing. But you would have to study the bible to really understand the depth and meaning behind it. Plus you would have to look at it (the bible) from the perspective of how it was first written - a story book instead of as a text book which many will never be able to do.


Plus I always do get a good laugh when I see something on tv about a new theory or read it. Its always so general...so elementary because our human minds cannot even begin to comprehend it. Probably why Genesis was written without alot of gory details on creation. It would be too much for us to understand and put together.

Originally posted by Iron Man

TJ. You have still yet to answer my question.

I'm sorry bud -- repeat it for me and I'll be sure to answer.

give me a break... what won't they have court hearings about these days?

I never said that article explained the creation of the universe. I personally believe the big bang theory, but I don't even pretend to know for sure what happened before that. It's one of the things that I'm perfectly happy not knowing (not to sound completely ignorant). I'm actually partway through a book that talks about all of the different theories on the creation and future of the universe, and so far it is very interesting. One of the good points that I've come to so far says "If God created the world, where was he before creation?" This is the same question I've seen asked of nonbelievers in other threads. "What was there before the universe was created if it wasn't created by god?" Either way, it doesn't really make much sense, and is best left alone IMO.

Edit: I forgot to say this but yes, I did read Genesis just a couple of months ago in school while we studying creation stories.

Just like I could say "What was there before the particles? How did the particles get there? How did anything get there?"

Its what I said above - our minds cannot comprehend the beginning of time. Its really a completely useless thing to even think about IMO. Ive always thought the scientists that have devoted time in this subject in particular are being very wasteful because their talents could probably be better used in something thats far more relevant. In the unlikly event that the beginning is ever figured out I would place money down that it would be nothing more than an interesting fact and nothing more.

So you did re-emphasize what I had eluded too - its a pointless topic which is why I dont like nonbelievers getting into arguments with believers on the topic. As a believer, if thats what your whole basis for being a believer is, thats pathetic.

I don't want to get too caught up in the whole religious non-religious argument because IMO it's a rediculous thing to bicker about, however I will say one thing. There are two ways to read and comprehend the bible. One way is to take everything literally at face value, believing that what is written is fact. The other way is to interpret the bible metaphorically, taking everything to be true but not what it says, rather what it represents. I interpret the bible metaphorically, and due to this I am Christian but I still believe in evolution. However, I still think this whole court case is rediculous and a mere waste of time and conflict. I just thought I'd put a new consideration into the pot as far as religion is concerned. [8D]

^^This is a very good point.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by Carlosio


Coasterkid - Just look around. It's interesting really that people accept something that they are taught outright, but not those things that they are given a choice.

I don't know what you're talking about since it's not very clear, but I think you're talking about accepting what a chemistry book or something like that says. You need to understand that the experiments in the book can be replicated at any time. You cannot replicate the Bible. You cannot randomly flood the entire earth with water that never existed in the first place and then magically goes away. You cannot take water and somehow make it into wine without waiting.

Originally posted by CarlosioJesus is no more fictional than Caeser, the question is about his miracle powers and significance. There is documentation everywhere, from the gospels themselves (yes, they are as valid as any other historical record) to census's (?) etc.

No they're not as valid as any other historical record, they were written at least 50 years afterwords the supposed events took place. If he was so damn important and awesome why didn't they get off of their asses and write this stuff down right away? If someone magically came back from the dead today it would be written into a history book or something within a year bar minimum.

I'm still asking for this abundant proof. Saying "there are records" is not proof, I want a link to a book I could buy or something.

Originally posted by stloismaverick11

^ I'm completely agree with you. I also wanted to ask those who are atheist or who don't believe in a God or a religion, why? I just want to hear how you think man was created?

Why eh?

Well considering there a ton of world religions, don't you think the "right" one would have lasted for a damn long time? I mean Christianity sprung up just 2000 years ago. The earth is WAY older than 2000 years. Don't you think we would have been touched by God's presence earlier on, especially since the Greeks were pretty huge on homosexuality. Don't you think God would have sent Jesus to restore "what is right" to that region that was so bitterly plagued by the sin of homosexuality? Whatever happened to the Egyption gods or the Greek ones? They were made up, same with Christianity and all other current major world religions are.

I also don't believe in it because the stories are perposterous. Evolution happened, get over it. If you line up the bones year by year they slowly morph from an ape to a human. That makes the story of creation a lie.

Noah's Ark could not have happened because Polar bears cannot cooperate with a Black Mamba. They could never have temperature controled the ark, and never fit all of the animals on earth into it? Do you know how many damn insects he have to have on that ship? What about the plants? Lots of plants don't do so well if they're completely submerged in water for a couple of days.

The entire religion is a lie created to make up an answer. The religion was invented to keep peace, much like the caste system was invented in India to keep people from rebelling.

The largest terrorist organization in the USA is a Christian group.

I mentioned earlier how my cousin was killed by a Christian Medicine institution. 6 year olds live through pnemonia in hospitals, had she been in a hospital she would have lived. I have seen none of you relgious people address this topic. I would like an explanation of how you can be associated with a group that kills people.

Missionaries ruined the countries they came into to spread Christianity, I don't think that is right. They killed people, and ruined peoples way of life which was fine to begin with.

The Catholic church gave banquets to Nazi's in Africa while the Pope did jack poop to help the Jewish people and sat out like a god damned pussy. I don't care what you said, the guy could have done so much more, like maybe tell people what the hell was going on.

Priests rape little kids.

[jayman]

well, the bad news is that ANY book you buy on the subject is gonna be biased... books that try to "prove" god are gonna be coming from a source who's agenda is to discredit science , and a book that tries to "PROVE" that there isn't one is gonna come from a source that discredits religious scriptures regardless of any accuracy they have ...
also i have a feeling that ( and t. conwell will most certainly back this up) the diciple luke, author of the gospel acredited to him, is considered to have been a "doctor" and kept a journal of the things he witnessed.. to be fair i don't neccesarily believe this, but it will probabaly be used as evidence, even in the case mentioned, and the believers will polish their fingernails on their shirt fronts when this "evidence' is presented. but again , this is something that cannot be proven... it is also taught that the diciple mark was never far from christ during the 3 years of his life that are used in the scriptures to "prove" he was who he said he was (supposedly , maybe we can get into a discussion as to what "i am" meant, i personally translate it as .. " what you see is what you get" .. but defineatlly left open to interpretation regardless of ANY formal training in ancient greek, hebrew, chaldean and latin.that one might have , and know that i feel that this training would be one sided and limited in a seminary environment, not to be offensive, but obvious)

the good news is that, well, you just might find answers that satisfy your desire to solve your personal spiritual dilema.. i read a book called " the case for christianity" ( i cannot remember who wrote this.. help me out here t.j. i doubt if you've never heard of it) after reading it i , myself became more of an agnostic,mostly because i read it with an open mind and knew from past experience that it was indeed biased ( slightly, infact there were parts of it that i found to be somewhat objective, or at least as objective as a true fundalmentalist can be without being untrue to themselves so it gets my creds ) BUT HONEST .....
BUT i , for one, would not discourage you from reading this type of material and deciding for yourself what to believe...
in the meanwhilst if any one really wants to know what it is i believe p.m. me and i'll try my best to explain it, but i refuse to be thrown under any proverbial bus on the matter and request that my opinons be respected by those who wish to ask...failure to do so will result in my telling my life story in vernacular you may find offensive

[jayman]

P>S> coasterkid.. i feel you need to know although i'm getting over my personall bitterness and find it best not to challenge these people, but accept what they believe as THEIR own personal beliefs(so long as they DO NOT try to affect the lives of people who do not, or cannot for what ever reason) that i happen to agree with you about this quote in your last post "The entire religion is a lie created to make up an answer. The religion was invented to keep peace, much like the caste system was invented in India to keep people from rebelling." although i like to be diplomatic and not use words like "lie". but then again i guess it's the word used for when people who know better tell people who are gonna believe them no matter what something they know isn't true... but my point is... since it cannot be proven is it really a "lie"... there's no reason people shouldn't have faith in something that was created to keep peace...well.... so long as they don't exploit it to further personal human agendas.. um ...well.. like the caste system...

respect and tolerance are what's needed to keep the world, as ruled by humans, in one peice.. one cannot teach tolerance with intolerance any more than one can promote peace with war....this statement will get me into some trouble i know,
then again i can't "prove" that we won't hear the sound of biblical trumpets and see jesus, or even santa, the easter bunny and mr. spock coming out of the sky to get those who believe in them
having faith in something isn't wrong, so long as it isn't something like "i have faith that murdering random people will keep me in god's favor" or "i'm gonna stand up on the rollercoaster and god will save me' and since i haven't heard this stuff from people here who are defending thier faith i'm led to assume that there beliefs are ultimately reasonable...

[coolbeans326]

I'm gonna go jump off of a tall building and have fait that God will slowly float me down.

[jayman]

i know you're kidding...
p.s.. ... the wierdest thing.. THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA TYPEalmost word for word, but typed the rollercoaster thing in it's place.. THAT"S THE WIERDEST THING EVER!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by jayman

well, the bad news is that ANY book you buy on the subject is gonna be biased

Interesting how the Bible is still the most printed book in history though ... and there is no second place book as nothing comes close. Odd how such a "storybook" as some would call it would always continue to be the most demanded book in history - regardless of the year.

Originally posted by jayman

also i have a feeling that ( and t. conwell will most certainly back this up) the diciple luke, author of the gospel acredited to him, is considered to have been a "doctor" and kept a journal of the things he witnessed.

More or less correct, Luke was considered some sort of a medicine man, but not a specific healer as one would understand the word in that time. Luke was a disciple who followed Jesus because he knew this man was who He said He was. This is something I find amazing and almost jealous of the disciples. They actually got to walk with Him on Earth, talk with Him, and listen to Him teach. While one day I will get to talk to Him, to have been able to do that here on Earth knowing what I know now would be spectacular.

Originally posted by jayman

it is also taught that the diciple mark was never far from christ during the 3 years of his life that are used in the scriptures to "prove" he was who he said he was

Actually, none of the 12 disciples was ever far from Christ during his 3 year ministry. It is widely accepted that Jesus poured his life into these 12 men, and those 12 men shook the foundation of the "religious" world because of the witness they had to what Jesus had done, and who He is.

Originally posted by jayman

(supposedly , maybe we can get into a discussion as to what "i am" meant, i personally translate it as .. " what you see is what you get".

Well, no. "I am" is written in the present tense of the verb. If you went to the store, you would say "I was" at the store -- if you were there you would say "I am" at the store. This is what Jesus meant. He is present tense, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here is a common reference I use in sermons. In Genesis 2 when God was creating the world, He said "Let us create man in our image." Now, who is He talking to? I assure you, He was not talking to himself. This is what takes a bit of understanding ... God is considered the Triune Godhead. That is, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are three seperate entities, but one at the same time. So therefore, when Jesus said "I am", he meant that He is the living God. There was no one before Him, and most certainly no one after Him. I find it odd about all the other religions in this world ... all of their leaders are STILL in their graves, bones, ash, whatever. Jesus, however, is not ... seems pretty powerful evidence to give weight to the fact that He is the great "I am" - taken on fatih of course

Originally posted by jayman

the good news is that, well, you just might find answers that satisfy your desire to solve your personal spiritual dilema.. i read a book called " the case for christianity" ( i cannot remember who wrote this.. help me out here t.j.

I have heard of it, but never read it so you are on your own here.

Originally posted by jayman

respect and tolerance are what's needed to keep the world, as ruled by humans, in one peice.. one cannot teach tolerance with intolerance any more than one can promote peace with war....this statement will get me into some trouble i know, then again i can't "prove" that we won't hear the sound of biblical trumpets and see jesus, or even santa, the easter bunny and mr. spock coming out of the sky to get those who believe in them.

Interesting analogy here man. Tolerence of life is one thing (and there is a certain amount of tolerence and respect given to all humans ... HOWEVER, tolerence of habits that are abhorent to God's law is quite another and that is where I seperate myself from those who seek to mock God, or live in a way that is unpure. However, I shall see Jesus in the clouds returning from Glory, no one else made that promise (and no I shall not accept anyone else's promise now based on immaturity.) Jesus promised to return, and I believe Him. True He never set a date to return, but if He does come back - I am ready. Again, no other "religious figure" ever made this promise, as they are ALL still in their graves rotten.

Take for example the Mormon Church. I find it interesting that Joseph Smith (dead and in his grave) claims to have found these gold tablets in the ground and that they were from God, yet every few years the "leaders" of this church meet and MAKE CHANGES to their "Book of Mormon" becuase things they believe had been prophecies from God have not come true. They have consistently moved dates, changed facts, and even lied in the hopes that no one was paying attention. Isn't it odd that their recent television commercials promoting their "companion to the bible"? Like, Jesus' story told once was not enough that they had to re-tell it and add to it. What kills me is that they change the diety of Christ in their Bible so Jesus sounds like a good teacher, instead of the Son of God. For example, my bible says in John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Mormon Bible says (in the same verse), "In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." With that one letter, they have removed Jesus from His Throne and put Him on a shelf level with all gods (notice the small "g" here). Whoa to them who remove the diety of Jesus Christ ....

This of course is just one example, but I think you can see where I am going with this.

^"Whoa to them who remove the diety of Jesus Christ..."

You mean Woe to them,


Also remember, this was written far before all the religions we have today. Back in His time on Earth there were not many religions, not like we have today. The situation was similar and the conditions similar. People like to think the world we live in is so different but its not. Its still full of political corruption, war, greed and selfishness. Nothing has changes but technology and time. Theres still churches that are corrupt, wars being faught in the name of gods and people dieing because of it.

But isnt it interesting that before all of this, Christianity is the only one that stands out for its differences? All the others are essentially the same. All their leaders/creators were once alive, but died. But never spoke of rising again. Never spoke of coming back. Just examine all the other religions and then spin back to Christianity and youll find some interesting diffferences worth looking into.

coasterkidwmn - Ill get back with you on the institution.

Originally posted by Real

You mean Woe to them,

No, I typed and meant "Whoa", as in STOP doing it because it is not good (but no one would really get that anyway). "Woe" will come naturally, should they not "whoa".

No, Coasterkid, not chemistry, which i've watched myself, and if you'd have bothered to absorb the post and read it properly, i actually said only a minutes read away that i have no issues with science and accept much of what is said with no questioning whatsoever.

I was referring again to Julius Caeser. Real said that it is beneficial to see the bible as a storybook, rather than a text book, but i'm going to go back to it as a text book for a moment. I assume you studied history at some point in schooling, and if you did, you would have used text books, which would have contained sources; primary, secondary etc. So what are the gospels then? They are stories, yes, but also records of what happened in jesus' life i.e. historical sources. Also, they were written anything between 10 and 40(ish) years after his death, by people who were close to the deciples, or in Johns case, a deciple themself. Now, i suppose you don't know much about the deciples after the assension of Jesus, but if you do, you will know that each suffered greatly for christianity, and most suffered fates worse than Christ himself. Making a record of the icon just makes sense.

Ok, if we're going to do it like this, you present me with proof he didn't exist. I'm not going to get petty about it, but i've said, census' etc. This won't have meant much to anyone who doesn't already accept it, but there it is.

So I pose this question:

What makes data recorded today on events that happen different from events that were recorded in the past?

We have tons of official records that are nothing more than words on a page. No pictures (some predate photography and werent painted though painting isnt a sure thing either - artistic element), no audio, nothing but words. We will take that as evidence which was written probably someone primary or secondary.

Yet, the Bible, which was recorded mostly by Primary sources (the NT that is) we dismiss as fake or made up? I just dont see how that translates. If I were to believe like you guys believe, then when I open a text book if there is NO picture and NO audio or video to back up whats written, it must be false.


See, that theory doesnt work. What most people do is they switch their own theology on the subject of sources. Because the book has the obvious religious and spiritual attachment to it, it has no weight but it was written void of that, it would be a historical document. Which makes no sense to me at all.

^
Word...

Originally posted by Real

So I pose this question:

What makes data recorded today on events that happen different from events that were recorded in the past?

We have tons of official records that are nothing more than words on a page. No pictures (some predate photography and werent painted though painting isnt a sure thing either - artistic element), no audio, nothing but words. We will take that as evidence which was written probably someone primary or secondary.

Yet, the Bible, which was recorded mostly by Primary sources (the NT that is) we dismiss as fake or made up? I just dont see how that translates. If I were to believe like you guys believe, then when I open a text book if there is NO picture and NO audio or video to back up whats written, it must be false.


See, that theory doesnt work. What most people do is they switch their own theology on the subject of sources. Because the book has the obvious religious and spiritual attachment to it, it has no weight but it was written void of that, it would be a historical document. Which makes no sense to me at all.

What makes the Bible a more credible source than the holy books of other religions?

And for people who think this post is an indirect attack on the Bible or Christianity, please note that I'm asking this question seriously, because I have a lack of knowledge about history of holy books (Koran, Torah, etc.)

Obviously we would need to have studied them to know this.

Also, the Koran and its "leader" are real and were real and lived and died. The Torah is essentially the first 5 books of a normal chrsitian bible so theres no difference there.


Most other holy books are credible to their source. If they recorded real events and they were a real person written about or written by, chances are better than not that its credible.

Its just the message that is vastly different in most books - especially that ending thats the most different.


I dont dispute the other holy books when they record things that happened, they probably did. However, its the messages that usually dont align or the overall goal that doesnt seem to coincide with the rest.

Im not trying to tell anyone right from wrong.


Its not about what book is more credible than another. Because most holy books are ancient, theres always speculation on whether or not its credible or not. I think its the story inside, what it asks of us and what we are said to be given.