When religious discussion is no longer General.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Religion is basically helpless to bring humanity to God, but they are pathologically addicted to the belief that " They" are the path to God; so religion is egotistic and innately selfish in its self evaluation, exactly the same dynamic with Atheism, just opposite selfishness and self centered vision of reality. Part of the problem, which thinks itself the solution; a blindness no human can overcome.
Because its a reality not devised by humans. Its not a human map.
Because its a reality not devised by humans. Its not a human map.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1480352 wrote: That Huffington article was great; in my view!
Yeah. Brilliant. There WAS no article. Just a page of headlines with links to other sites, such as CNN & The Religious News Service. That is not an article. It's a navigation page.
Yeah. Brilliant. There WAS no article. Just a page of headlines with links to other sites, such as CNN & The Religious News Service. That is not an article. It's a navigation page.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1480356 wrote: Yeah. Brilliant. There WAS no article. Just a page of headlines with links to other sites, such as CNN & The Religious News Service. That is not an article. It's a navigation page.
The bulk of Atheist complains against Religion are general things, they don't give real insight to this deeper look into religion. When what you are challenging becomes much deeper itself, Then your compliants and responses must become more deeper
If a ten is given in a challenge, you can't counter with a 5 and believe you are above being common.
If you have talent , its going to come out on these boards. If you are beyond general, then you can make a conversation " Pop"; you can make It shine; just from you're talent.
Lets leave the common stuff behind and go beyond. Just let what's in you, out!
The bulk of Atheist complains against Religion are general things, they don't give real insight to this deeper look into religion. When what you are challenging becomes much deeper itself, Then your compliants and responses must become more deeper
If a ten is given in a challenge, you can't counter with a 5 and believe you are above being common.
If you have talent , its going to come out on these boards. If you are beyond general, then you can make a conversation " Pop"; you can make It shine; just from you're talent.
Lets leave the common stuff behind and go beyond. Just let what's in you, out!
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1480490 wrote: The bulk of Atheist complains against Religion are general things, they don't give real insight to this deeper look into religion. When what you are challenging becomes much deeper itself, Then your compliants and responses must become more deeper
If a ten is given in a challenge, you can't counter with a 5 and believe you are above being common.
If you have talent , its going to come out on these boards. If you are beyond general, then you can make a conversation " Pop"; you can make It shine; just from you're talent.
Lets leave the common stuff behind and go beyond. Just let what's in you, out!
Religion is like some nutty dictatorship, such as North Korea. It's dogma makes no sense whatsoever, but insists it has to be true because it came from the person at the top, so everyone else falls in line. Some because they are too stupid, or too brainwashed to know any better. Others because they fear the outcome if they start to think for themselves by listening to the points of view from outside their regime. If you only listen to one side then everything is going to be the same, backing itself up.
This is why I completely discount any 'evidence' presented as 'fact' from Religious based sources. They are, by nature biased. If it was a dedicated Atheist source I would take the same attitude. The evidence I see is that which is observed scientifically by neutral parties. Yes, there is evidence in abundance to show the existence of ancient religions. No-one is disputing that. They exist now, so why should they not have existed then? The difference between Scientific Archeology & Biblical Archeology is that Scientific Archeology might find a portion of a clay tablet, say, and says that it is a piece of clay tablet, perhaps used for writing on. The Biblical twist would take the same item & claim it to be a piece of the tablets containing the 10 Commandments on. The fact that it has no discernible writing on it is irrelevant.
Sources that have an agenda of their own will always be discounted. When the majority of the sources cited are of a Religious base that is why the majority of the 'evidence' is ignored - because it is non-evidence.
Despite the multitude of unfounded Religious claims to the contrary, there is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove the existence of a Deity or any other Supernatural being or event.
If a ten is given in a challenge, you can't counter with a 5 and believe you are above being common.
If you have talent , its going to come out on these boards. If you are beyond general, then you can make a conversation " Pop"; you can make It shine; just from you're talent.
Lets leave the common stuff behind and go beyond. Just let what's in you, out!
Religion is like some nutty dictatorship, such as North Korea. It's dogma makes no sense whatsoever, but insists it has to be true because it came from the person at the top, so everyone else falls in line. Some because they are too stupid, or too brainwashed to know any better. Others because they fear the outcome if they start to think for themselves by listening to the points of view from outside their regime. If you only listen to one side then everything is going to be the same, backing itself up.
This is why I completely discount any 'evidence' presented as 'fact' from Religious based sources. They are, by nature biased. If it was a dedicated Atheist source I would take the same attitude. The evidence I see is that which is observed scientifically by neutral parties. Yes, there is evidence in abundance to show the existence of ancient religions. No-one is disputing that. They exist now, so why should they not have existed then? The difference between Scientific Archeology & Biblical Archeology is that Scientific Archeology might find a portion of a clay tablet, say, and says that it is a piece of clay tablet, perhaps used for writing on. The Biblical twist would take the same item & claim it to be a piece of the tablets containing the 10 Commandments on. The fact that it has no discernible writing on it is irrelevant.
Sources that have an agenda of their own will always be discounted. When the majority of the sources cited are of a Religious base that is why the majority of the 'evidence' is ignored - because it is non-evidence.
Despite the multitude of unfounded Religious claims to the contrary, there is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove the existence of a Deity or any other Supernatural being or event.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Just a few things to consider;
70 metal books found in Jordan cave could change our view of Biblical history | Daily Mail Online
Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries by Keith N. Schoville. Biblicalstudies.info by Ferrell Jenkins
Also refer to the " Mari and Nuzi Tablets."
70 metal books found in Jordan cave could change our view of Biblical history | Daily Mail Online
Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries by Keith N. Schoville. Biblicalstudies.info by Ferrell Jenkins
Also refer to the " Mari and Nuzi Tablets."
When religious discussion is no longer General.
As usual, it is a matter of creative interpretation. First of all, the books are still sealed, yet they speak of their contents. Secondly they say that there is mention in the Bible of Jesus opening a sealed book. It doesn't specify whether that was a metal book or not. Even if it was, then it clearly isn't one of these, as believed, as they are still sealed.
Furthermore, they are still sealed, yet there is speculation as to their contents, already claiming it to be some sort of divine 'evidence', when it could just as easily be a recipe book for chocolate biscuits. It speaks of images of a cross being considered a Christian image. Firstly, crosses have been used as signatures for thousands of years BC. Secondly crucifixions were taking place long before Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the existence of any cross image (if that's even what it is) is not evidence of any religious significance at all. It is said that they long predate John. If the Gospels were the precise records of the life of Jesus by those that were supposedly there, some sort of documentation that predates this, by definition predates the existence of Jesus. It can therefore not be considered a Christian artifact. Any mention of a Messiah means nothing. At best, even if it were to say that, all it verifies is that a Messiah is predicted - just as it is in the Religious texts of most other Religions. It doesn't support any claim that Jesus were to become that Messiah.
Yes, the metal books are interesting in their own right & of historical interest. They may even be some form of early scripture. It still does not in any way support the actual existence of a divinity. At best it proves that people believed in one even then. That much has never been in doubt. Religion has always been born of ignorance & scientific comprehension of the facts so the umbrella solution to any unknown occurence was "The Work Of God".
Furthermore, they are still sealed, yet there is speculation as to their contents, already claiming it to be some sort of divine 'evidence', when it could just as easily be a recipe book for chocolate biscuits. It speaks of images of a cross being considered a Christian image. Firstly, crosses have been used as signatures for thousands of years BC. Secondly crucifixions were taking place long before Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the existence of any cross image (if that's even what it is) is not evidence of any religious significance at all. It is said that they long predate John. If the Gospels were the precise records of the life of Jesus by those that were supposedly there, some sort of documentation that predates this, by definition predates the existence of Jesus. It can therefore not be considered a Christian artifact. Any mention of a Messiah means nothing. At best, even if it were to say that, all it verifies is that a Messiah is predicted - just as it is in the Religious texts of most other Religions. It doesn't support any claim that Jesus were to become that Messiah.
Yes, the metal books are interesting in their own right & of historical interest. They may even be some form of early scripture. It still does not in any way support the actual existence of a divinity. At best it proves that people believed in one even then. That much has never been in doubt. Religion has always been born of ignorance & scientific comprehension of the facts so the umbrella solution to any unknown occurence was "The Work Of God".
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1480580 wrote: As usual, it is a matter of creative interpretation. First of all, the books are still sealed, yet they speak of their contents. Secondly they say that there is mention in the Bible of Jesus opening a sealed book. It doesn't specify whether that was a metal book or not. Even if it was, then it clearly isn't one of these, as believed, as they are still sealed.
Furthermore, they are still sealed, yet there is speculation as to their contents, already claiming it to be some sort of divine 'evidence', when it could just as easily be a recipe book for chocolate biscuits. It speaks of images of a cross being considered a Christian image. Firstly, crosses have been used as signatures for thousands of years BC. Secondly crucifixions were taking place long before Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the existence of any cross image (if that's even what it is) is not evidence of any religious significance at all. It is said that they long predate John. If the Gospels were the precise records of the life of Jesus by those that were supposedly there, some sort of documentation that predates this, by definition predates the existence of Jesus. It can therefore not be considered a Christian artifact. Any mention of a Messiah means nothing. At best, even if it were to say that, all it verifies is that a Messiah is predicted - just as it is in the Religious texts of most other Religions. It doesn't support any claim that Jesus were to become that Messiah.
Yes, the metal books are interesting in their own right & of historical interest. They may even be some form of early scripture. It still does not in any way support the actual existence of a divinity. At best it proves that people believed in one even then. That much has never been in doubt. Religion has always been born of ignorance & scientific comprehension of the facts so the umbrella solution to any unknown occurence was "The Work Of God".
Well I agree, they do not prove existence, but I am glad you see they are of interest. They are; and history, if not viewed so general at times, is of real interest; something caused these events; these things.
And I think MORE than humans caused them. Proving that is another story that is yet being written.
These recorded pictures are real; and real in the bible; that is not circumstancial evidence; its evidence; we can see it!
ivory castle in biblical archaeology - Bing Images
Furthermore, they are still sealed, yet there is speculation as to their contents, already claiming it to be some sort of divine 'evidence', when it could just as easily be a recipe book for chocolate biscuits. It speaks of images of a cross being considered a Christian image. Firstly, crosses have been used as signatures for thousands of years BC. Secondly crucifixions were taking place long before Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the existence of any cross image (if that's even what it is) is not evidence of any religious significance at all. It is said that they long predate John. If the Gospels were the precise records of the life of Jesus by those that were supposedly there, some sort of documentation that predates this, by definition predates the existence of Jesus. It can therefore not be considered a Christian artifact. Any mention of a Messiah means nothing. At best, even if it were to say that, all it verifies is that a Messiah is predicted - just as it is in the Religious texts of most other Religions. It doesn't support any claim that Jesus were to become that Messiah.
Yes, the metal books are interesting in their own right & of historical interest. They may even be some form of early scripture. It still does not in any way support the actual existence of a divinity. At best it proves that people believed in one even then. That much has never been in doubt. Religion has always been born of ignorance & scientific comprehension of the facts so the umbrella solution to any unknown occurence was "The Work Of God".
Well I agree, they do not prove existence, but I am glad you see they are of interest. They are; and history, if not viewed so general at times, is of real interest; something caused these events; these things.
And I think MORE than humans caused them. Proving that is another story that is yet being written.
These recorded pictures are real; and real in the bible; that is not circumstancial evidence; its evidence; we can see it!
ivory castle in biblical archaeology - Bing Images
When religious discussion is no longer General.
We can see with our own eyes;
solomon's copper mines - Bing Images
No need to make things up.
Ancient city discovered beneath Biblical-era ruins in Israel | Fox News
Its academic really.
solomon's copper mines - Bing Images
No need to make things up.
Ancient city discovered beneath Biblical-era ruins in Israel | Fox News
Its academic really.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1480583 wrote: Well I agree, they do not prove existence, but I am glad you see they are of interest. They are; and history, if not viewed so general at times, is of real interest; something caused these events; these things.
And I think MORE than humans caused them. Proving that is another story that is yet being written.
Frankly, I find it more interesting that they seem to have had the technology to make the metal plates that thin in the first place.
Although Daniken has been shown to be a charlatan on most things, he did raise some interesting points & came up with some fascinating theories of extra terrestrial visitors - and even that we may well be descended from them, either directly, or having interbred with them. The relevance here is that if it were the case then they may have shared some of their technology, and there is also plenty of archeological evidence to support the theories. Not enough to prove anything one way or the other, though, but enough to make you think. Beings arriving from the Heavens - Gods. Spaceships - Fiery Chariots. Helicopters - Beasts of Roaring Wings. If anything the Bible has far more references to things that could be interpreted as intelligent alien life than there are to any sort of divinities.
Can you just imagine someone in a few thousand years finding a collection of DVDs of Sci-Fi movies from this era & due to severe decay over the years, only part of the data could be retrieved. Clips from films such as ET, War of the Worlds, Independence Day, etc might well be extrapolated as proof positive that this planet had been invaded & colonised by aliens, and that these DVDs were actual recordings of this happening. The reality, of course, is nothing of the sort, but it's easy to see how they might come to believe that was the case.
And I think MORE than humans caused them. Proving that is another story that is yet being written.
Frankly, I find it more interesting that they seem to have had the technology to make the metal plates that thin in the first place.
Although Daniken has been shown to be a charlatan on most things, he did raise some interesting points & came up with some fascinating theories of extra terrestrial visitors - and even that we may well be descended from them, either directly, or having interbred with them. The relevance here is that if it were the case then they may have shared some of their technology, and there is also plenty of archeological evidence to support the theories. Not enough to prove anything one way or the other, though, but enough to make you think. Beings arriving from the Heavens - Gods. Spaceships - Fiery Chariots. Helicopters - Beasts of Roaring Wings. If anything the Bible has far more references to things that could be interpreted as intelligent alien life than there are to any sort of divinities.
Can you just imagine someone in a few thousand years finding a collection of DVDs of Sci-Fi movies from this era & due to severe decay over the years, only part of the data could be retrieved. Clips from films such as ET, War of the Worlds, Independence Day, etc might well be extrapolated as proof positive that this planet had been invaded & colonised by aliens, and that these DVDs were actual recordings of this happening. The reality, of course, is nothing of the sort, but it's easy to see how they might come to believe that was the case.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
This biblical Priest was real, and his bones are real;
Tomb May Hold the Bones Of Priest Who Judged Jesus - NYTimes.com
He slapped Jesus in the face!
Nothing fake here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas_ossuary
Tomb May Hold the Bones Of Priest Who Judged Jesus - NYTimes.com
He slapped Jesus in the face!
Nothing fake here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas_ossuary
When religious discussion is no longer General.
I kind of stumbled this site; kind of like how they showed these 50 real biblical people;
Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible | The BAS Library
Interesting vedio;
The Bible, Archeology, and Science
Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible | The BAS Library
Interesting vedio;
The Bible, Archeology, and Science
When religious discussion is no longer General.
There must be far more than 50 people mentioned in the Bible of whom there is archaeological evidence of their existence. Of that there is no doubt. If someone slapped Jesus - especially a priest, that would not be surprising either. He was said to be a radical, making all sorts of statements against the establishment & as a result wouldn't have made many friends amongst the priesthood. The chances are he got slapped by quite a few of them.
However, despite the positive spin being put on them, both links state that it is not even certain that's what it is.
The Wiki one says:
It has been suggested that this belonged to Joseph, son of Caiaphas, known as the High Priest Caiaphas in the New Testament although this is disputed.
While the New York Times one states:
Archeologists say no comparable evidence exists for the remains of any other such major figure mentioned in the New Testament. And after 2,000 years, the presence of Caiaphas's bones in the tomb cannot be finally verified either.
Even a name on the box could not even be taken as absolute proof, as there is no shortage of duplicated names at any one time in history. The vague timescale that this may cover makes the possibility of such duplicates much higher.
My point, though, is that the existence of characters & places, and even many actions has never been in question. It's the parts when things go into the realms of fantasy, involving the magic tricks of some imagined deity that I take issue with.
However, despite the positive spin being put on them, both links state that it is not even certain that's what it is.
The Wiki one says:
It has been suggested that this belonged to Joseph, son of Caiaphas, known as the High Priest Caiaphas in the New Testament although this is disputed.
While the New York Times one states:
Archeologists say no comparable evidence exists for the remains of any other such major figure mentioned in the New Testament. And after 2,000 years, the presence of Caiaphas's bones in the tomb cannot be finally verified either.
Even a name on the box could not even be taken as absolute proof, as there is no shortage of duplicated names at any one time in history. The vague timescale that this may cover makes the possibility of such duplicates much higher.
My point, though, is that the existence of characters & places, and even many actions has never been in question. It's the parts when things go into the realms of fantasy, involving the magic tricks of some imagined deity that I take issue with.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1480592 wrote:
My point, though, is that the existence of characters & places, and even many actions has never been in question. It's the parts when things go into the realms of fantasy, involving the magic tricks of some imagined deity that I take issue with.
I think we inherited " Imagination" from that deity. And we should all have an imagination; so I am not against imagination, but I do disagree with trying to use magic to prove anything, much less God. I have imagined many things in Life that I eventually obtained. So in many cases, imagination is the forerunner of reality.
My point, though, is that the existence of characters & places, and even many actions has never been in question. It's the parts when things go into the realms of fantasy, involving the magic tricks of some imagined deity that I take issue with.
I think we inherited " Imagination" from that deity. And we should all have an imagination; so I am not against imagination, but I do disagree with trying to use magic to prove anything, much less God. I have imagined many things in Life that I eventually obtained. So in many cases, imagination is the forerunner of reality.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Our future is not going to be general;
It's going to be incredible!
It's going to be incredible!
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Credible meaning Believable.
Incredible meaning Unbelievable.
Incredible meaning Unbelievable.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Just another recent find:
Israeli archaeologists find rare 3,000-year-old inscription of name from Bible | Fox News
Israeli archaeologists find rare 3,000-year-old inscription of name from Bible | Fox News
When religious discussion is no longer General.
If we take an overall view of what's going on worldwide; not a general view, but a major view, again religion is always in the headlines, in one manner or another. I think much of religion is deceptive, well intentioned, yet rife with the misinterpretations of its followers. And that is then a worldwide deception, I think its HOW, in Rev. 12:9, satan has " Deceived the whole world!" To believe that satan himself is a myth, simply furthers to more empower this great deception. In Rev. 12, Christ is born, vs.3, and the powers of mythology seeks to make him a myth. So we have these two great beings placed on earth at very close times; in verse 10 the REASON for all this is given;" Now is come Salvation!"
So the devil, Christ, and deception were all " Prepared of God ", vs.6.
On a world wide basics! Like a play; a script! Yet very live , very real.
In vs. 12, " Woe to the inhabitants of the earth!"
We got to live through this, IN this! This script is still yet being written!
So the devil, Christ, and deception were all " Prepared of God ", vs.6.
On a world wide basics! Like a play; a script! Yet very live , very real.
In vs. 12, " Woe to the inhabitants of the earth!"
We got to live through this, IN this! This script is still yet being written!
When religious discussion is no longer General.
So what is that supposed to prove? At best it might verify that King David had a son - that is, of course, assuming that is the Eshbaal Ben Beda it refers to. There are countless names of people mentioned in the Bible of people & places that existed in real life. Of course there are. One day in the future you might find a child's book with the words inscribed on it...
"Pussycat, pussycat, where have you been?"
"I've been up to London to look at the Queen"
"Pussycat, pussycat, what did you there?"
"I frightened a little mouse under a chair".
Proof of the existence of a place called London.
Proof of the existence of a Queen
And most of all, Proof Positive of a talking Cat.
"Pussycat, pussycat, where have you been?"
"I've been up to London to look at the Queen"
"Pussycat, pussycat, what did you there?"
"I frightened a little mouse under a chair".
Proof of the existence of a place called London.
Proof of the existence of a Queen
And most of all, Proof Positive of a talking Cat.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1480791 wrote: So what is that supposed to prove? At best it might verify that King David had a son - that is, of course, assuming that is the Eshbaal Ben Beda it refers to. There are countless names of people mentioned in the Bible of people & places that existed in real life. Of course there are. One day in the future you might find a child's book with the words inscribed on it...
Proof of the existence of a place called London.
Proof of the existence of a Queen
And most of all, Proof Positive of a talking Cat.
Proof of existence of the biblical King Herod!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
Proof of the existence of a place called London.
Proof of the existence of a Queen
And most of all, Proof Positive of a talking Cat.
Proof of existence of the biblical King Herod!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1480866 wrote: Proof of existence of the biblical King Herod!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
2 links to the same place? Both of which display "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
I'm not sure this was intended to be Tongue in Cheek or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s ... Jerusalem)
2 links to the same place? Both of which display "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
I'm not sure this was intended to be Tongue in Cheek or not.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1480875 wrote: 2 links to the same place? Both of which display "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
I'm not sure this was intended to be Tongue in Cheek or not.
Archaeologists Find Royal Entryway To King Herod's Hilltop Palace
I'm not sure this was intended to be Tongue in Cheek or not.
Archaeologists Find Royal Entryway To King Herod's Hilltop Palace
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Something interesting from Ted;
A world without religion, how will it really look? | A conversation on TED.com
A world without religion, how will it really look? | A conversation on TED.com
When religious discussion is no longer General.
While interesting archaeologically, it still doesn't go to prove anything from the Bible in the Deific sense. The existence of Herod has never been disputed.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481002 wrote: While interesting archaeologically, it still doesn't go to prove anything from the Bible in the Deific sense. The existence of Herod has never been disputed.
Then explain why the things he did to disrupt Jesus has been disputed?
Well because you want to erase that history, because it does not ride your horse history.
You let ride anything that does not your mindset.
Then explain why the things he did to disrupt Jesus has been disputed?
Well because you want to erase that history, because it does not ride your horse history.
You let ride anything that does not your mindset.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1481265 wrote: Then explain why the things he did to disrupt Jesus has been disputed?
Well because you want to erase that history, because it does not ride your horse history.
You let ride anything that does not your mindset.
That was somewhat cryptic. Can you clarify this, as I am unsure of your meaning?
Well because you want to erase that history, because it does not ride your horse history.
You let ride anything that does not your mindset.
That was somewhat cryptic. Can you clarify this, as I am unsure of your meaning?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Smaug;1481299 wrote: That was somewhat cryptic. Can you clarify this, as I am unsure of your meaning?
You're not the only one.
You're not the only one.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Smaug;1481299 wrote: That was somewhat cryptic. Can you clarify this, as I am unsure of your meaning?
Well the poster admits the existence of King Herod is not disputed, yet in Matt. 3rd chapter it clearly states that Jesus was born in the " Days of Herod the King", vs.1. People were calling Jesus birth, that of a King, and when Herod heard that he was troubled. He sought to disrupt Jesus life by killing him, and he went as far as having all the children in Bethlehem AND the surrounding coasts killed; he had them all slaughtered!
And people want that erased from history. Jesus was so real, such a threat, this King Herod committed genocide! That is not cryptic, its history!
Well the poster admits the existence of King Herod is not disputed, yet in Matt. 3rd chapter it clearly states that Jesus was born in the " Days of Herod the King", vs.1. People were calling Jesus birth, that of a King, and when Herod heard that he was troubled. He sought to disrupt Jesus life by killing him, and he went as far as having all the children in Bethlehem AND the surrounding coasts killed; he had them all slaughtered!
And people want that erased from history. Jesus was so real, such a threat, this King Herod committed genocide! That is not cryptic, its history!
When religious discussion is no longer General.
If you take everything from the Bible as Evidence, then it's History. However, it would appear that whether or not there was any such massacre is also in question. I don't pretend to know one way or the other as it has been disputed for many years by people far more knowledgeable on the matter than myself and neither has been able to provide conclusive proof one way or the other. Nor is there any reason to believe that he was even born in Bethlehem. The story of the journey because of a census doesn't make sense either because there would be no reason to know where someone was born in order to tax them. It's all a collection of myths & trying to forcibly shape things into place to make superstitious predictions look as if they came true. To those with Faith they don't need proof, because they just blindly believe what they are told, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is the definition of Faith.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481321 wrote: If you take everything from the Bible as Evidence, then it's History. However, it would appear that whether or not there was any such massacre is also in question. I don't pretend to know one way or the other as it has been disputed for many years by people far more knowledgeable on the matter than myself and neither has been able to provide conclusive proof one way or the other. Nor is there any reason to believe that he was even born in Bethlehem. The story of the journey because of a census doesn't make sense either because there would be no reason to know where someone was born in order to tax them. It's all a collection of myths & trying to forcibly shape things into place to make superstitious predictions look as if they came true. To those with Faith they don't need proof, because they just blindly believe what they are told, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is the definition of Faith.
I have no faith, but I believe in history; And Jesus history was recorded by these historians;
Re: Is God Real?
Was Jesus Real? If we consider God being Real, then we should consider was Jesus real. Well according to these people and writers in history, he was;
Sextus Julius Africanus
Celsus
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger and his Correspondance to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Thallus
Origen
Josephus
Lucian
Tertullian
Dionysius the Areopagite
Hegesippus
Clement
Conon
Porphyry of Tyre
Polycarp
Eusebius
Irenaeus
Ignatius
Justin Martyr
Phlegon
Mara Bar-Serapion
Julian the Apostate
Ussher
Paulus Orosius
The Toledot Yeshu
Clemet of Alexandria
Chrysostom
Macarius the Elder
Or one could ask what credible historians ever claimed that Jesus did not exist?
As to Jesus being real, more people wrote about him;
Aristides the Athenian
Quadratus of Athens
The writer of the espitle of Barnabus
We have the actual bone box of Caiaphas, the High Priest who slapped him in the face
We also have the bone box of Simon the Cyrenian who helped carry his cross
We know the actual location of his death at the mountian of the Skull, Golgotha
We have the lake he was baptised in , Jordan
We all know Jerusalem is still there, and the Sea of Galaliee where he performed many of his miracles
We have the actual house of his friends Mary and Martha
Not to mention Peters house
We have the Via Dolorosa
The Damascus Gate
Hey man, when you got the bones of people Jesus met and interacted with, the houses of people he knew, the place he was killed, the river he was baptized in, two possible places he was buried in, the city he preached in, the actual spot of a garden he prayed in, a well he drank from, over 40 historians that wrote about him and the Babylonian Talmud that mentions him; good grief what more do you need?
I have no faith, but I believe in history; And Jesus history was recorded by these historians;
Re: Is God Real?
Was Jesus Real? If we consider God being Real, then we should consider was Jesus real. Well according to these people and writers in history, he was;
Sextus Julius Africanus
Celsus
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger and his Correspondance to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Thallus
Origen
Josephus
Lucian
Tertullian
Dionysius the Areopagite
Hegesippus
Clement
Conon
Porphyry of Tyre
Polycarp
Eusebius
Irenaeus
Ignatius
Justin Martyr
Phlegon
Mara Bar-Serapion
Julian the Apostate
Ussher
Paulus Orosius
The Toledot Yeshu
Clemet of Alexandria
Chrysostom
Macarius the Elder
Or one could ask what credible historians ever claimed that Jesus did not exist?
As to Jesus being real, more people wrote about him;
Aristides the Athenian
Quadratus of Athens
The writer of the espitle of Barnabus
We have the actual bone box of Caiaphas, the High Priest who slapped him in the face
We also have the bone box of Simon the Cyrenian who helped carry his cross
We know the actual location of his death at the mountian of the Skull, Golgotha
We have the lake he was baptised in , Jordan
We all know Jerusalem is still there, and the Sea of Galaliee where he performed many of his miracles
We have the actual house of his friends Mary and Martha
Not to mention Peters house
We have the Via Dolorosa
The Damascus Gate
Hey man, when you got the bones of people Jesus met and interacted with, the houses of people he knew, the place he was killed, the river he was baptized in, two possible places he was buried in, the city he preached in, the actual spot of a garden he prayed in, a well he drank from, over 40 historians that wrote about him and the Babylonian Talmud that mentions him; good grief what more do you need?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
We have the earth that we live on. The same earth he supposedly walked on. That is not evidence of his existence. Just because a place exists doesn't prove anything about anyone who folklore says lived in it.
Personally I have no doubt that he did exist. My point is that there is no hard evidence to that effect, but even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing to show that he was any kind of a deity. I do believe, however, that even the wildest of myths & legends often have some faint origin in truth, except that the truth gets vastly distorted & embellished over time. There is no definable table of reference known to exist, so everything else is a matter of interpretation & assumption. Even the common image of the crucifix is more than likely inaccurate as the typical configuration was as an X, rather than a T, as the T version would result in being top heavy, and that same X design is still being used to this day. Furthermore, if he had been held there by nails, as claimed, they would have simply torn through the ligaments & skin under the weight. The claim is a physical impossibility. He could have been nailed AS WELL as being tied, but that's not the claim - just another assumption.
With your list of 'historians', how many were actually present to witness the claims? When were these events supposedly recorded? How were they recorded? Where are these records? Who is it who makes claim to these being actual records (I doubt if it's independent archaeologists, as opposed to "Biblical Archaeologists", who have their own agenda)? If all these records are so cut & dried, then how come the matter is still so much in doubt?
Personally I have no doubt that he did exist. My point is that there is no hard evidence to that effect, but even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing to show that he was any kind of a deity. I do believe, however, that even the wildest of myths & legends often have some faint origin in truth, except that the truth gets vastly distorted & embellished over time. There is no definable table of reference known to exist, so everything else is a matter of interpretation & assumption. Even the common image of the crucifix is more than likely inaccurate as the typical configuration was as an X, rather than a T, as the T version would result in being top heavy, and that same X design is still being used to this day. Furthermore, if he had been held there by nails, as claimed, they would have simply torn through the ligaments & skin under the weight. The claim is a physical impossibility. He could have been nailed AS WELL as being tied, but that's not the claim - just another assumption.
With your list of 'historians', how many were actually present to witness the claims? When were these events supposedly recorded? How were they recorded? Where are these records? Who is it who makes claim to these being actual records (I doubt if it's independent archaeologists, as opposed to "Biblical Archaeologists", who have their own agenda)? If all these records are so cut & dried, then how come the matter is still so much in doubt?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481361 wrote: We have the earth that we live on. The same earth he supposedly walked on. That is not evidence of his existence. Just because a place exists doesn't prove anything about anyone who folklore says lived in it.
Personally I have no doubt that he did exist. My point is that there is no hard evidence to that effect, but even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing to show that he was any kind of a deity. I do believe, however, that even the wildest of myths & legends often have some faint origin in truth, except that the truth gets vastly distorted & embellished over time. There is no definable table of reference known to exist, so everything else is a matter of interpretation & assumption. Even the common image of the crucifix is more than likely inaccurate as the typical configuration was as an X, rather than a T, as the T version would result in being top heavy, and that same X design is still being used to this day. Furthermore, if he had been held there by nails, as claimed, they would have simply torn through the ligaments & skin under the weight. The claim is a physical impossibility. He could have been nailed AS WELL as being tied, but that's not the claim - just another assumption.
With your list of 'historians', how many were actually present to witness the claims? When were these events supposedly recorded? How were they recorded? Where are these records? Who is it who makes claim to these being actual records (I doubt if it's independent archaeologists, as opposed to "Biblical Archaeologists", who have their own agenda)? If all these records are so cut & dried, then how come the matter is still so much in doubt?
Two reasons are the time, some 2,000 years ago, and then being the Son of God, its just not a believable thing to some.
Personally I have no doubt that he did exist. My point is that there is no hard evidence to that effect, but even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing to show that he was any kind of a deity. I do believe, however, that even the wildest of myths & legends often have some faint origin in truth, except that the truth gets vastly distorted & embellished over time. There is no definable table of reference known to exist, so everything else is a matter of interpretation & assumption. Even the common image of the crucifix is more than likely inaccurate as the typical configuration was as an X, rather than a T, as the T version would result in being top heavy, and that same X design is still being used to this day. Furthermore, if he had been held there by nails, as claimed, they would have simply torn through the ligaments & skin under the weight. The claim is a physical impossibility. He could have been nailed AS WELL as being tied, but that's not the claim - just another assumption.
With your list of 'historians', how many were actually present to witness the claims? When were these events supposedly recorded? How were they recorded? Where are these records? Who is it who makes claim to these being actual records (I doubt if it's independent archaeologists, as opposed to "Biblical Archaeologists", who have their own agenda)? If all these records are so cut & dried, then how come the matter is still so much in doubt?
Two reasons are the time, some 2,000 years ago, and then being the Son of God, its just not a believable thing to some.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Its hard to believe real truth, like 1 Corinth. 15:22, " For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ, ( that SAME ALL), shall be MADE alive!"
God is going to MAKE this happen to us ALL! We ALL will live with him;
and that is hard to believe.
God is going to MAKE this happen to us ALL! We ALL will live with him;
and that is hard to believe.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Just look at all the different subject topics here in religious section now; the subject is widespread, its not general; we must go beyond general, and into deeper waters. No more acceptance of the shallow, we are a deeply conscious people, able to go much farther than we realize. The subject of God is likened to a two edged sword, we can cut and slice into our conscious image of him and grow!!
And that is what I intend to do. And we can write some history of our own!
And that is what I intend to do. And we can write some history of our own!
When religious discussion is no longer General.
That is, after all, the definition of the very word "History" - "His Story". A story passed from one person to another, and another, etc.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481675 wrote: That is, after all, the definition of the very word "History" - "His Story". A story passed from one person to another, and another, etc.
Well that is true; it was one of the only ways to pass down history, the other writing. Its how we got what we have.
Well that is true; it was one of the only ways to pass down history, the other writing. Its how we got what we have.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1481692 wrote: Well that is true; it was one of the only ways to pass down history, the other writing. Its how we got what we have.
And by the time they'd developed writing the story was nothing like the original - and still it continued to change with re-writings, translations, & interpretations.
And by the time they'd developed writing the story was nothing like the original - and still it continued to change with re-writings, translations, & interpretations.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481699 wrote: And by the time they'd developed writing the story was nothing like the original - and still it continued to change with re-writings, translations, & interpretations.
Correct, but see, we had nothing to do with that; it did happen, but we know enough now to screen much of that deception; you just choose not to study those corrections.
Its human nature not to study deeply into things that do not match your life style.
Correct, but see, we had nothing to do with that; it did happen, but we know enough now to screen much of that deception; you just choose not to study those corrections.
Its human nature not to study deeply into things that do not match your life style.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
And to Cherry Pick the bits they want, ignore the rest, and interpret the the ambiuosities (is that a word ?) to mean whatever they want it to mean.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
The bible has thousands of cherries to pick from.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1481747 wrote: The bible has thousands of cherries to pick from.
And millions more to ignore.
The beauty of cherry picking for the Happy Clappies is that they can take the pick of their cherries, then plant those stones to get an even better tree with even better cherries to pick from, and so on until you get cherries the size of Grapefruit, and a totally different colour - but it's absolutely 100% cherry, so it has to be the truth.
Curious that the Father of selective Genetic Plant Breeding was also a Catholic Friar (Gregor Mendel).
And millions more to ignore.
The beauty of cherry picking for the Happy Clappies is that they can take the pick of their cherries, then plant those stones to get an even better tree with even better cherries to pick from, and so on until you get cherries the size of Grapefruit, and a totally different colour - but it's absolutely 100% cherry, so it has to be the truth.
Curious that the Father of selective Genetic Plant Breeding was also a Catholic Friar (Gregor Mendel).
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1481752 wrote: And millions more to ignore.
The beauty of cherry picking for the Happy Clappies is that they can take the pick of their cherries, then plant those stones to get an even better tree with even better cherries to pick from, and so on until you get cherries the size of Grapefruit, and a totally different colour - but it's absolutely 100% cherry, so it has to be the truth.
Curious that the Father of selective Genetic Plant Breeding was also a Catholic Friar (Gregor Mendel).
Science taught us how to change fruit, not religion.
The beauty of cherry picking for the Happy Clappies is that they can take the pick of their cherries, then plant those stones to get an even better tree with even better cherries to pick from, and so on until you get cherries the size of Grapefruit, and a totally different colour - but it's absolutely 100% cherry, so it has to be the truth.
Curious that the Father of selective Genetic Plant Breeding was also a Catholic Friar (Gregor Mendel).
Science taught us how to change fruit, not religion.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
When we get into dogma and doctrine it becomes a futile discussion and is far from being general. There are some 22000 variations on the Christian scene and many of them claim to have the sole handle on the truth. Then comes the judging which the Holy Bible clearly warns against. A Christian and an ecumenist I see truth in all of the Great faiths. However some use religion as an excuse to commit many negative acts.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Ted;1482939 wrote: When we get into dogma and doctrine it becomes a futile discussion and is far from being general. There are some 22000 variations on the Christian scene and many of them claim to have the sole handle on the truth. Then comes the judging which the Holy Bible clearly warns against. A Christian and an ecumenist I see truth in all of the Great faiths. However some use religion as an excuse to commit many negative acts.
I agree far too many of them be general.
I agree far too many of them be general.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
It cannot be otherwise. We do not have the conceptualization abilities or the language to discus the Divine in any thing but a generalized way. Our languages cannot corral God.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Ted;1484220 wrote: It cannot be otherwise. We do not have the conceptualization abilities or the language to discus the Divine in any thing but a generalized way. Our languages cannot corral God.
I agree, but we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of; and we can only relate, as humans can do.
And I don't trust that to be 100 percent reliable.
I agree, but we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of; and we can only relate, as humans can do.
And I don't trust that to be 100 percent reliable.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
And this is why religious discussions can no longer be general, or traditional; that don't cut it anymore! We have to go beyond this average normal look at religion, and WHY it even exist. Religion is a great Trojan horse placed within humanity by non-humans. Its an after thought, a seed planted that has grown to great lengths. Its a spiritual influence designed to confuse humanity and cause all kinds of human adoration.
But never intended to carry the real truth of God to humanity, but always " Believed to be doing just that."
But never intended to carry the real truth of God to humanity, but always " Believed to be doing just that."
When religious discussion is no longer General.
There is a saying, " You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." So if you don't know the truth, your conscious thoughts are in bondage; misled and stagnant. Many freethinkers are really not free.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Far too many are held in bondage by their religion.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Have you ever noticed how you can tell the Happy-Clappies at a glance? They the ones with the vague faraway grins on their faces.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
The church ceased to be the church the apostles created. That started around 300 CE.