[veritas]

Hello again, veritas:

Ok, he existed. He was a nice Jewish carpenter. Do you not get my point? If not, then I won't trouble you further.

excon

Jesus claimed to be God. He did not leave him being a nice Jewish carpenter open to us as a viable choice. If you don't accept his claim to be God then he was either a liar or a lunatic. Anyone falsely claiming to be God would not be a nice Jewish anything.

[veritas]

no writing of his time mentioned him,or his birth -- do you not think that all male children being killed would have been mentioned in the roman records? the romans kept good records believe it or not.
santa and the toothfairy are just as believable in my eyes.-- Savage

Are you referring to the extra-biblical references of Jesus by the Jewish Historian, Josephus or the Roman Historian, Cornelius Tacitus?

Even without the extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, the Gospels and the Apostle Paul's writings are as much an historical account as any. The Gospels were written, by conservative estimates, between AD 55-95, the earliest copy being from AD 130, only 35-70 years after the originals. In addition, over 5,200 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts have been discovered through archeology. Compare that to the writing of other figures whom we would never think to question:

Author When written Earliest copy Time span # of copies
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs 5
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Gospels 55-95 A.D. 130 A.D. 35-70 yrs 5,200

[excon]

Jesus claimed to be God.

Hello again, veritas:

I don't know if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death?? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

[Tj3]

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death???

Actually, the gospels were written very close after his death.

And he did claim to be God. Here is one example:

John 20:28-29
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV

Thomas called Him God, and Jesus commended His belief.

John 10:28-39
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one."

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
NKJV

Here he was clear that He was saying that He was God, so clear that the Jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

John 8:57-59
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
NKJV

And once again they tried to stone Him for claiming to be God (I AM means the self-existent one, which is what YHWH (name of God) means. The Jews understand that He was calling Himself God.

There are many other examples.

[veritas]

It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. Rather it's been found difficult and left untried.
--G.K. Chesterton

[jillianleab]

With love and respect,

But since Jesus claimed to be God, he is either a liar, a fool, or really God.

You've just hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't god, I'm saying I don't think he was. I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed. But that's my opinion, and I fully respect that yours is different. I hope you respect mine as well. :)

To claim some of his moral teachings for oneself is fine but what about the most outrageous claim of divinity!?

What about it? Why do I need to believe in anything divine?

It seems that with any world view there will be those that follow, those that try and fail, and those that give up. Why are Christians judged so harshly when they fail to live up to what they claim? If we're all honest, don't we all often fail to live up to what we claim?

Honestly? Because Christians are the "loudest", at least in the US. Christians will proclaim they are right, they are the best, so on and so on, but many live a very hypocritical life. My mom's neighbors claim to be devout; their daugther had two children out of wedlock in her teens/early 20's (two different guys). She married daddy #2 after baby #2 was born, then had baby #3. Is this in line with the teachings of Christianity? No. Do I care? No, but I DO care when Christians like them who have pregnant unmarried daughters chastize others for having pregnant unmarried daughters. Or when people like them claim they are devout, they live their live the way god wants, so on and so on. But I'm wrong because I don't go to church. Look at the divorce rate in the US. Now look at the number of Christians in the US. It is fair to assume a majority of people getting divorced are Christian. So what gives that person the right to look down on me for something "unholy" that I did?

Lots of people fail to live up to what they claim, but may people of faith make excuses for it, using their faith. "Oh, well I killed that abortion doctor because god told me to". There is an absence of personal responsibility in many people of faith and that troubles me greatly.

I think you're right. Many Christians and non-christians alike tend to "push" their idelogies, both claiming to be right. I would think we give each side their turn to debate in this marketplace of ideas. There's no sense in shutting down one side and not the other. And taking a position that you don't know or neutrality is also position and can be challeged. There's no winner or loser, only a chance to gain knowledge. In addition, if someone approaches me and says they have truth, I'm all ears. After all, is it not truth that we all seek?

Felice Navidad

I think you have a great outlook. You appear to not be closed to other people's beliefs, which is important. It shows you have a great deal of tolerance and probably also respect for others. Of course both sides claim to be right - no one wants to be wrong, especially in the case like this. I mean, if I'm wrong, and Christians are right, chances are, I'm going to hell. That would suck, to say the least. If muslims are right, we might both be going to hell. If I'm right, we're both going to turn into worm food. The truth is, no one REALLY knows. I SAY I know, but you SAY you know as well. When it comes down to it, neither of us does, and maybe NONE of us have it right.

Debate can be interesting and create a great learning experience, but only when it doesn't get ugly. It frequently gets ugly here. You get someone who insults the other person, or someone who is unable to understand that others think differently. Instead of it being an exchange of thoughts it turns into who's right and who's wrong, and neither side will admit to being wrong.

[jillianleab]

Also, veritas you might want to check out this old thread:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirit...ow-111864.html

It is very long, and there is some uglyness in it, but it will probably help give you a better understanding of the (non)beliefs of the people on this board.

[Dark_crow]

Santa Claus - There are certainly some similarities between Santa and God. Both are invisible. Both are purveyors of "good things". Both figures exist in a framework that includes a story about their origins, and their existence. Both exist in a cultural context. Both are referred to as 'he' in their respective frameworks. And both oppose and ultimately punish bad behavior.

[Fr_Chuck]

Actually I have never heard Santa is invisible, he ( according to the novels written on the made up santa) is he lives in the north pole, is married and travels by a sled. Not invisible in any story written about him.

And Of course the santa story came out of a real person

[excon]

Hello again:

You could insert Popeye's name instead of Santa in DC's post, and the rest would be true.

Merry Christmas, and God rest ye merry gentlemen.

excon

[Dark_crow]

The interesting thing is that no matter what a persons take is on Christianity, they are a product of that tradition; we use concepts and language inherited from tradition.

[Capuchin]

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death??? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

"Oh hi there. I'm God. Yeah I'm omnipotent. Wanna buy a chair?"

[templelane]

"Oh hi there. I'm God. Yeah I'm omnipotent. Wanna buy a chair?"

You crack me up!
I'd like to enjoy the debate but I'm too stuffed to think straight... Maybe later. :p

[veritas]

You've just hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't god, I'm saying I don't think he was. I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed. But that's my opinion, and I fully respect that yours is different. I hope you respect mine as well. :)

Your opinions have all of my respect, no doubt about it. What I'm suggesting is that this goes beyond our opinions. What I'm suggesting is that the historical evidence, not my opinion, shows not only that Jesus existed, but that his claim to divinity is more than reasonable. No New Testament scholar (Christian or non-Christian) would ever doubt that Jesus walked the earth, so please let us put that myth to rest. To have an opinion that Jesus never existed is really not an option. So the only real question is whether He was who He claimed to be and that is where we must set aside our personal preferences and deal strictly with the historical evidence.

I'm not asking anyone to become a Christian. I spent most of my adult life as an atheist and agnostic because I didn't want there to be a God. But faced with the overwhelming historical evidence of the life and resurrection of Jesus, I realized that it doesn't matter what I think or want. This was a process for me that took several years of soul-searching, challenging old assumptions, and reading through the historical evidence.

All I ask is that we use our heads as well as our hearts when dealing with the matter and not rely on personal opinions, prejudices, and assumptions. We've been convinced that when it comes to religion that we must check our brains at the door and rely only on our feelings. This assumption is false and I've been very impressed with the mass of intellectual minds (William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Peter Kreeft, Greg Koukl, etc.) that can strongly defend the Christian world view. The historical evidence is there but it seems that our will is not. Remember, absolute proof only exists in Math when we know all the rules ahead of time. What anyone ever expects is reasonable evidence that something is or is not.

Kind Regards,
Joe

[veritas]

The interesting thing is that no matter what a persons take is on Christianity, they are a product of that tradition; we use concepts and language inherited from tradition.

The Genetic Falacy:
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong." Or,
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."

Check out Ravi Zacharias who was brought up by Hindu priests in India but who is not a Christian apologist.

[veritas]

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death??? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

Well, let's see. It's generally agreed that Christ was crucified about AD 30. The Gospel of Mark has been dated between AD 60-65. Think about it... it is absolutely reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses to the life of Christ were still living at the time of the writing of Mark's writing that could have objected to what he wrote. All they had to do was to bring forth Jesus' corpse! It's us people that consider the evidence of history! Others deny it, not based on any evidence to the contrary, but on a personal desire to reject it.

[jillianleab]

Veritas I never said he didn't exist, I was referring to the fact that there is some debate regarding his existence (I was unclear though). To be honest, I haven't read enough about it to form an opinion. Perhaps you see the historical evidence as proof of his divinity, but I don't.

It's interesting you said you were an atheist/agnostic because you didn't WANT there to be a god... then you go on to say we "must check out brains at the door and rely on our feelings" For myself, I've never thought about not wanting there to be a god; I simply don't think there is one. And if something requires me to "check my brain at the door" it's probably something I don't want a part of. But that's just me!

[jessica x]

Good question... though I'm not sure you want to hear from me as I consider myself a Christian. Of course, I have also meditated in Buddhist temples, practiced in Hindu ashrams, and attended Jewish temples. The one truth I've found is, God is always with me. Exploring religions is the best thing anyone can do to open their hearts and minds and grow... and find the truth for them.

I do not know why people have such issues with Christianity. It's a beautiful religion. The path of Jesus Christ is one of love and truth and compassion, and I feel sad that that message has been perverted or lost to people. I feel as though many people approach Christianity from their minds (from judgement, from right and wrong), when the true path of Jesus Christ is that of love, surrender to the will of God, and the experience of an open heart, and the ability of offer forgiveness. In truth, nothing is harder.

You wonder why people have problems with Christianity? I believe it's because they do not understand it. I believe it's because they've enpowered other people to decide what it is for them instead of trying to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ on their own.

[veritas]

Veritas I never said he didn't exist, I was referring to the fact that there is some debate regarding his existence (I was unclear though). To be honest, I haven't read enough about it to form an opinion. Perhaps you see the historical evidence as proof of his divinity, but I don't.

It's interesting you said you were an atheist/agnostic because you didn't WANT there to be a god... then you go on to say we "must check out brains at the door and rely on our feelings" For myself, I've never thought about not wanting there to be a god; I simply don't think there is one. And if something requires me to "check my brain at the door" it's probably something I don't want a part of. But that's just me!

You said, "I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed." My apologies, I guess one could read that you weren't including yourself in that sentence. Therefore, I'm sorry for coming down hard on you for denying his existence.

I too was unclear. In addition to believe that no God existed, then that I believed one couldn't know if a God existed, I also didn't want there to be a God.

No, I'm saying that we must NOT check our brains at the door, nor should we only rely on feelings. My point was that atheists and agnostics often claim that Christians do that but that in reality, we must use our brains to seek and review the historical evidence.

[s_cianci]

Yes, that's what I've deduced. The non-Christians don't think the Christians really practice their religion on a day-to-day basis, don't show love to God and to their neighbors as Jesus commanded.

Sadly, this is true ; a lot of them don't. And I think this is what causes people to take issue with Christianity.