I have reserved these fine seven sacred words for when I do see any God "what the f..k took you so long", it may not be a good way to break the ice but it sure as hell will start a conversation. I wonder what he or she is doing right now, maybe having an orange soda and watching poor old us on galactic pay-per-view ala an episode of southpark. I mean what goes on on earth sometimes is worth an admission ticket sometimes, you can't write this stuff up; religion, fanatics, Iran, crocodiles snatching the leg of an Indian man obliviously fishing somewhere in India? Who said all the world's a stage again? Was it shakespare? Seriously sometimes the world resembles a big budget drama with no real script but improvs.
Scientific Approach to the Jesus question
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
TheVisitor said:
Um...
Are you serious?
The creation of the AD / BC dating system is a well known historical fact :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Pardon me, it's FIVE centuries, not six (I was thinking of 6th century, whoops.)
If YOU claim the dating system was from earlier, then YOU provide the evidence please.
Anyway
you apologists think the dating system proves Jesus.
But,
you all conspicuously ignore the Jewish dating system - which according to YOUR argument, proves the world was created 5766 years ago.
And,
what about the names of days -
the name "Thursday" proves Thor is real - according to YOUR argument that is.
Iasion
The point of my question wasn't to challenge your statement of the age or origin of our dating system.Iasion said:
My question to you was about a larger picture....a more sublime element that pervades every aspect of our lives.
Let me repeat it... "you are taking someones word for everything you believe to be true."
Unless you were there yourself or saw any event personally, you either read it in a book or are taking someones word for fact.
I don't care how much something is considered a "well known historical fact"
You have to at some point rely on faith, instinct, public opinion, safety in the numbers of the consensus of a majority ect...to make your own decision on what is true and what isn't.
Not that it matters but for one example realize that the Babylonians and Sumerians were enemies of the Hebrews so anything written in a Babylonian record may be slanted against the God of the Hebrews from the very start, and may not be true no mater how old it is.
Can you see what I was saying now?
I'm just trying to point out a "bigger" picture here, and hope someone sees it.
Last edited:
Iasion said:
If you read the website you provided, you will find that calendars have been known to memorialize epoch events... some epoch events are considered to be historical and others are considered to be legends. Throughout recorded history, most scholars consider the calendar which memorializes the year that Jesus Christ was born to be based on an historical event.
What is the "idea" that you are saying was "invented" 6 centuries after Jesus?
How do you think one goes about concluding that the year of Jesus' birth was calculated incorrectly (within a few years of the actual event) if the event never took place?
How does something get invented "after Jesus" if there never was a Jesus to begin with?
SkinWalker said:
WHAT HAPPENED TO ME? Reflections of a Journey, 2004
Excerpts can be found at www.allaboutthejourney.org
Thats great, and Hi to you too.Wilmet said:
Welcome to the forum.
Wilmet said:
Hmmm..
I have clearly explained this several times.
You don't seem able to grasp a very simple concept.
Our dating system (of BC / AD) is the idea.
Our dating system was INVENTED by Little Dennis in the 6th century.
For some reason, you refuse to even acknowledge this fact.
The BC / AD dating system was UN-KNOWN and UN-USED until 525 AD - if it's use proves Jesus existed, then surely it's NON-USE until 525 proves that Jesus did nor exist until 525AD?
Wilmet said:
Because Little Dennis ESTIMATED Jesus was born 525 years before him.
But,
we now know this cannot be correct (due to references in the Gospels.)
Furthermore,
different Gospels imply different dates for Jesus/ birth.
Christians now claim Jesus was born in 6-4 BC (or maybe some other date.)
Ergo,
Dennis was wrong - even Christians know this.
Except you, that is,
you appear to know nothing about this subject.
So,
tell us then -
WHEN do YOU think Jesus was born?
Wilmet said:
How could the AUC dating system get invented unless Romulus and Remus were really suckled by a she-wolf?
How could the Jewish dating system be invented unless the world was really created 5766 years ago?
How could today be named Thursday unless Thor really existed?
How could this month be named June unless the goddess Juno really existed?
Iasion
Woody,
This is one of two different meanings for the word "faith". This is more accurately termed inductive reasoning and we do it all the time. It is based on the idea that something has worked fine before and more likely many times before so there is a high probability based on these statistics that it will occur again. These statistical samples are effectively evidence.
And more precisely it is inductive evidence based on past history in your relationship. It is not blind faith but evidential faith, i.e. induction.
Here there are two problems. The first is that many of the bible teachings are very worthwhile, e.g. love your neighbor, don’t kill, etc. These are all good concepts humans have observed for many millennia, the bible didn’t invent these ideas, i.e. we use inductive reasoning for these things. The main problem is that Christians believe the origins of the bible teachings were derived supernaturally and that has no evidence deductive or inductive. Here is where blind faith enters the picture and that is quite different to evidential faith or inductive reasoning.
Only if you understand that you mean inductive reasoning and not blind faith.
Cris said:
Faith mangling? lol
A
Arete
Guest
Jesus loves you even if your an atheist 
Only problem is that you will burn in flames while he's loving you from above.
Only problem is that you will burn in flames while he's loving you from above.Jesus is a sadist.
Ill take my time in hell before i spend enternity with that sadistic hypocriteArete said:
Pardon me...
And Cris effectively declares the Christians faithless - they use inductive reasoning.
That its components were written by such authors is particularly self evident - it is a justifiable conclusion.
Why believe in God?
You have absolute purpose and a destiny. You're of more worth than the computer you're typing on, and more valuable than a single ion of the solar wind. You're here for a reason and you can appreciate that.
Why believe in God as these authors see God?
It's a worthwhile way to live.
If one considers him/herself to be endowed with all of the above and shares the reasoning then a belief in God is also justifiable. It effectively becomes self evident that God must be.
Otherwise you're worth no more than a grain of sand - why should you believe any differently?
Atheists and Nihilist-types are effectively worthless - no offense.
And Cris effectively declares the Christians faithless - they use inductive reasoning.
Christians believe that the Bible is a compilation of text written by men who believed in the existence of God (Creator, Sustainer).Cris said:
That its components were written by such authors is particularly self evident - it is a justifiable conclusion.
Why believe in God?
You have absolute purpose and a destiny. You're of more worth than the computer you're typing on, and more valuable than a single ion of the solar wind. You're here for a reason and you can appreciate that.
Why believe in God as these authors see God?
It's a worthwhile way to live.
If one considers him/herself to be endowed with all of the above and shares the reasoning then a belief in God is also justifiable. It effectively becomes self evident that God must be.
Otherwise you're worth no more than a grain of sand - why should you believe any differently?
Atheists and Nihilist-types are effectively worthless - no offense.
No Atheists give them self a purpose. Theists are nothing more than slaves to there supposed "god".
And as for jesus the sadist here you go. If jesus is indeed God Than that means he is responsible for 1.The flood that killed all of humanity except one family. 2.He sentenced entire cities to death. And here is the good one. You get to spend an entire eternity in a fiery hell if you dont kiss his ass. Plus if god is all-powerful and all-good there should be no evil in the world but as you can tell that is not so. So its either A.He isnt all powerful or 2. he is all powerful but not all good and enjoys watching his creations suffer.
We are the attributes of His thoughts before there was even a foundation of the world or anything. All this is just His thinking, and we're the display of His thoughts of what it was.
And He had to come down in order to take away sin. No one else could do it.
There was no one worthy to do it. No one could do it but Him, and He did it.
And then when that Life was released from that body, Man, which was the Son of God... His creative power made a building like any contractor built the building that He moved into Himself. God did that.
And then when that life was taken, the Blood, the chemistry of It, poured out upon the ground, just like just Abel's poured out upon the ground. But from that Blood came the Holy Spirit of God, and that was sent to man on the day of Pentecost to be identified with the Sacrifice that died for them. There's no other way in the world we can get it. A positive Token.
Man destroyed Himself, even in the Great Flood.....when God said "I will destroy", he let the destructive spirit in Man do it.
God came as Jesus and met His own requirements to live forever and died to let man share in that immortality undeserving as we are.
And He had to come down in order to take away sin. No one else could do it.
There was no one worthy to do it. No one could do it but Him, and He did it.
And then when that Life was released from that body, Man, which was the Son of God... His creative power made a building like any contractor built the building that He moved into Himself. God did that.
And then when that life was taken, the Blood, the chemistry of It, poured out upon the ground, just like just Abel's poured out upon the ground. But from that Blood came the Holy Spirit of God, and that was sent to man on the day of Pentecost to be identified with the Sacrifice that died for them. There's no other way in the world we can get it. A positive Token.
Man destroyed Himself, even in the Great Flood.....when God said "I will destroy", he let the destructive spirit in Man do it.
God came as Jesus and met His own requirements to live forever and died to let man share in that immortality undeserving as we are.
No God destroyed man. And it all comes down to god. It was God's mismanagement of his creations that lead them to sin. (This is assuming God exists)
spiritual_spy said:
Sounds like you believe in a God.......just to blame for your problems.
Sorry the problem runs a little deeper than that.
Man destroyed Man, over and over and over again.
Why? Because of unbelief in God, which lets him be taken by reprobate spirits of fallen angels who also fell by the same thing.
Those spirits never died when they wiped out mankind who listened to them.
They just wait until man becomes advanced again, and tell them the same secrets.....of the power of the sun.
Then man destroys man.
They are destroyers. God said not to eat of the fruit.
What is "the fruit"? Their teachings, Jesus said. Thats how you would know them.
Who do you think it was that whispered into the ears of those Nazi scientist's, to create the Atom bomb, or kill the Jews?
Demons, not God.
Don't try to blame Him.
Last edited: