Contradictions in the Bible?

[BoliverAllmon]

I thought to start a different topic, just for people to post supposedly contradictions of the Bible and for others to answer. I figured it would be easier to see here (if kept organized and free of mindless debate) than in the religious debate room.

boliver

[eddie92099]

Not a contradiction within the bible as such, but a contradiction with proven biological theory. The "immaculate conception" is clearly fabricated. With an error so large, I ask how can we take anything within this book seriously?
Ed

P.s. Please don't say "god did it", otherwise the unicorns in which you don't believe will trample you in your sleep (I don't expect you to follow that TwinkleFingers).

[BoliverAllmon]

why is it fabricated? and don't say impossible. Nothing is impossible only highly improbable.


boliver

[eddie92099]

There is only one way to make a baby. You need a sperm, and you need an egg. Sorry to spell it out,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

How about the verses where Jesus claims one might be in danger of Hellfire if he calls somebody a fool, and then calls people fools himself?  I would like to hear an explanation other than translation errors. (that seems like what I always get, if I mention a contradiction, it is attributed to translation errors)

[BoliverAllmon]

I won't list translation errors here. The difference is this. Read Matthew 7. Jesus explains that the way we judge people here on earth is how we will be judged in the afterlife. Jesus later says that if you call someone a fool it is a dangerous thing to do, because you will be judged accordingly. It is kinda like how can you take a spec out of a brother's eye, if you have a plank in your own. Jesus on the other hand knows the consequences, but chooses the word fool. He doesn't mind being judged in the same manner, because he doesn't sin. He isnt doing the same thing these people were doing.

boliver

[BoliverAllmon]

certain animals reproduce in other ways. You say that we evolve correct? Why couldn't Mary have some mutation and have the capabilities of breeding with herself?

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

Your last statement is ridiculous.  Such a drastic mutation would need millions of years to develop slowly through thousands of generations.  Anyway, evolution doesn't occur without selective pressure, and there is no selective pressure for such a mutation.

[eddie92099]

certain animals reproduce in other ways. You say that we evolve correct? Why couldn't Mary have some mutation and have the capabilities of breeding with herself?

What would be so divine about that?!
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

God causes the mutation or something. I don't believe it  happened that way. I am just using that as an example to show that it is possible for something besides her and Joseph going at it. If it has no reason to evolve this way, then monkeys didn't need to evolve to us either.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

Please don't take this badly, but do you understand how natural selection works?  Your last statement seems to indicate otherwise.  Natural selection kills off organisms less fit to survive, which allows those more fit to survive.  With your Mary example, she would have been far less fit for survival, and most likely would have succumbed to some disease, infection, or just died because her system couldn't handle a mutation so large that it couldn't have happened in one generation.

First of all, humans did not evolve from monkeys.  I repeat this, so you don't use the phrase again, we did not evolve from monkeys.  The ape-like creature that was our ancestor evolved slowly larger brain size when it conferred an advantage.  Say, for example, that a bigger brain allowed it to escape predators more often than his less intelligent relatives.  Those apes with bigger brains survived, and their children inherited big brains from their parents.  This evolution continued until we reach us, and is still continuing, just too slowly for us to really observe (although an example of evolution is our getting taller from one generation to the next) Natural selection is a documented fact.

[BoliverAllmon]

sorry not monkeys, but "ape-like creatures". Also, if large mutations don't happen then certain animals would have never evolved into what they did.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

It depends on what your definition of a large mutation is.  Your Mary example would not happen, no.  But some mutations can be fairly substantial.  I am being picky about terminology because there is a huge difference.  Monkeys are fairly distant relatives of us, and to say we evolved from them is grossly incorrect.  Actually, ape like creatures is only a descriptive term, because since humans are technically apes, we are therefore ape like.  I use the term ape like to mean that they were not to dissimilar in general appearance to our modern apes. (with the obvious exception that they walked upright)

[BoliverAllmon]

certain animals have a poison in their skin, venom, or someplace else. They don't get sick under the same poison. Certain insects shoot poison from their bodies. They also have a shock system to handle the force from the shooting. and again their poison doesn't hurt them.

All of these things  couldn't happen just whenever they had to happen at the same time, which make up really large mutations.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

I'm afraid your second paragraph has confused me.  But if I understand you correctly, things such as you mention can evolve.

[BoliverAllmon]

Geez, I seem to keep apologizing for my grammar. I also don't mean to come off harsh for the whole "ape-like" creature thing. I am learning.

boliver

[bitus]

The Bible was written for people to believe. Unless you believe, it doesn't make sense. And also... if there were arguments and proofs that would explain all questions about the Bible, everybody would believe... therefore faith would have no purpose.
That is what Christianity is all about: Faith... believing in something that you cannot see or touch. Everything else makes sense only after you believe.
And if you really want answer to picky and classic questions about the Bible, go talk to a expert in the Bible, and a lot of these questions will be answered. I would be more than happy to put anybody who is serious and open minde in touch with such a person... a bible scholar.
The Bitus

[fiesta]

I was also glad that I found this topic because I am also a christian.Yes,faith can change everything.Einstein says  "wisdom without faith is not complete and faith without wisdom is blind" If you want to have a success you must believe in God. Evolution is wrong.God has made the people as it writes in Genesis. May God bless You.
fiesta

[liszmaninopin]

I suppose you mean evolution.  No, evolution is not wrong, I'm quite confident in saying that Genesis is.  Look on the bright side, if you want to this is a good debate opportunity.  There are more than a couple people on this board who will participate in the evolution side of the debate.

[chopiabin]

It seems to me that people that don't (or can't) understand evolution should not make ridiculous asumptions about it. You must be joking about "Mary's mutation." Mutatuion takes place when genes recombine during fertilization or in the presence of certain toxic chemicals in which case the organism nearly always dies.

Fiesta's statement that "evulation is wrong " id funny considering his quote from Einstein that "faith without wisdom is blind" - I think fiesta proves that well.One can not make statements like "Genesis is correct" without proof when there is proof of the contrary position.

[schnabels_grandson]

I'd like to see this "proof".  I would also like to ask a question about evolution.  According to evolution, why do people still die?  After so many millions of years of refinement, why hasn't the life span of humans increased even slightly?  If we have already come so far from primordial goo, shouldn't we be evolving faster?  Survival of the fittest?  Nobody survives.  Nobody.  

I find it interesting that many evolutionists have accepted the theory as fact, while it is impossible to establish it as such.  Show me one supporting piece of evidence that isn't based on another theory or much challenged methods of discovery such as carbon dating.  How come no scientists have been able to create life from non living matter?  Until someone can truly replicate evolution and demostrate its plausibility, it is not an established fact.  

Again, I will use the intricacy of the human body to further challenge evolution.  Look at the eye.  All parts of the eye would have to have come about at the same time in order for the eye to work.  Do you really think that random chance would cause an undesigned eye to magically materialize on a previously blind organism?  Darwin himself pointed out the absurdity of this idea in his much (conveniently) ignored chapter titled "Difficulties on theory".

I have a theory too.  I call it "reasons for atheism".  It goes like this:  People find it unpleaseant to think that they are being seen by and are accountable to a higher being.  To avoid the natural feelings of remorse for violating natural laws set in place by this higher being, they rationalize that this higher being simply does not exist.  To support this, they turn to theories that, if true, would absolve them of their guilt before a deity.  Instead of acknowledging the obvious flaws in these theories, they tell themselves that they are irrefutable fact.  This reasoning serves as a liberator to them.  Since they have convinced themselves that nobody can tell them that they are wrong, they no longer suspect that they could be.  This allows them to do whatever pleases them without a second thought as to the ramifications of their actions.  
Then there's the other reason for atheism: Ignorance.  This is a controversial theory, but more likely than a random appearance of life.  

I expect to have third degree burns all over (and I mean everywhere ) my body after the imminent flaming I will receive.  
l  

[chopiabin]

There is evidence for evolution - fossils, DNA tests, and then the so-called controversial methods you mention.

The question about death was on my AP bio exam. If death did not exist then we would have overpopulatiuon and nothing could survive - there would be no food to provide energy to cells. Survival of the fittest means survival of the fittest genes - have you ever heard of carnivorous plants? They eat insects because the soil in which they grow has few nutrients. I think this is a dramatic example of evolution.

Scientists HAVE been able to create "protobionts" which are essentially protolife. These have not developed into fully developed organisms because they can't observe them for millions of years. Maybe evolution is a theory, but it has much more observable proof than does the existence of god or the divinity of Jesus.

I have also heard your "eye" question before. First of all evolution DOES NOT say that all of a sudden an organ just aapears. It takes one slight modifcation over time for millions of years. Those animals that are better equipped to survive are those that pass down their genes. I have heard the eye question explained very clearly and logically, but I don't feel like going to find my bio book. Trust me, there is a vergood explanation that has to do with light sensitive cells and encephalization.

Your theory is very silly. I used to be a Christian but when I was 10 I started wondering what made Christians feels that thgey were so right. I thought, "The Egyptians believed in their gods just as strongly as Christians do in theirs, so what makes us so sure that the Egyptians weren't right?"

I have noticed what you are talking about though. There are a lot of "atheists" who are simply pissed at a god in whom they still bvelieve. I have absolutely no belief in any form of higher being. I simply don't feel that I need that little comfort.


My theory is that religion is the weak human mind needs the comfort provided by religion (of which there is no irrefutable proof). Human beings are naturally very vain and prefer to think of themselves as special. How convenient it is that we can simply believe in a god (who incidentally looks like us) and we can escape death (one of humanity's greates fears) in one way or another. So it boils down to the same thing - igorance.
Have you ever read Nietzsche, Sartre, Skinner, Freud, etc.? I have read the bible, C.S. Lewis and many other theists and Christians, and I feel I have a good grip of their beliefs and their fears.

[schnabels_grandson]

There is evidence for evolution - fossils, DNA tests, and then the so-called controversial methods you mention.

The question about death was on my AP bio exam. If death did not exist then we would have overpopulatiuon and nothing could survive - there would be no food to provide energy to cells. Survival of the fittest means survival of the fittest genes - have you ever heard of carnivorous plants? They eat insects because the soil in which they grow has few nutrients. I think this is a dramatic example of evolution.

Scientists HAVE been able to create "protobionts" which are essentially protolife. These have not developed into fully developed organisms because they can't observe them for millions of years. Maybe evolution is a theory, but it has much more observable proof than does the existence of god or the divinity of Jesus.

I have also heard your "eye" question before. First of all evolution DOES NOT say that all of a sudden an organ just aapears. It takes one slight modifcation over time for millions of years. Those animals that are better equipped to survive are those that pass down their genes. I have heard the eye question explained very clearly and logically, but I don't feel like going to find my bio book. Trust me, there is a vergood explanation that has to do with light sensitive cells and encephalization.

Your theory is very silly. I used to be a Christian but when I was 10 I started wondering what made Christians feels that thgey were so right. I thought, "The Egyptians believed in their gods just as strongly as Christians do in theirs, so what makes us so sure that the Egyptians weren't right?"

I have noticed what you are talking about though. There are a lot of "atheists" who are simply pissed at a god in whom they still bvelieve. I have absolutely no belief in any form of higher being. I simply don't feel that I need that little comfort.


My theory is that religion is the weak human mind needs the comfort provided by religion (of which there is no irrefutable proof). Human beings are naturally very vain and prefer to think of themselves as special. How convenient it is that we can simply believe in a god (who incidentally looks like us) and we can escape death (one of humanity's greates fears) in one way or another. So it boils down to the same thing - igorance.
Have you ever read Nietzsche, Sartre, Skinner, Freud, etc.? I have read the bible, C.S. Lewis and many other theists and Christians, and I feel I have a good grip of their beliefs and their fears.

As you provided no source to argue, but just a plain statement, I won't say anything about your "evidence".  About death:  If death did not exist, wouldn't evolution render our reproductive systems useless to prevent overpopulation and thus fulfill it's purpose?  
 
About protobionts:  I don't know when Scientists have created them out of dead matter, but I would hardly classify these as life or even precursors to life as the name suggests.  For one they can't reproduce, and the only thing that seperates them from regular dead matter is a few shared properties with living organisms, lacking the most important property of a living organism, which is life.

About eyes:  So somehow, the evolving organism knows that it needs eyes?  It can somehow determine that vision exists?  It planned in advance to slowly develope sight?  Perhaps Ears would be a better example.  Did an organism decide that sound existed and it would devise a system to interperate this new thing?

I stand by my theory.  Logically, humans are very special because we are at the top of the "evolutionary chain".  I really think it is just easier for people to do whatever they want than to live by what the bible says.  Nobody said that God looks like us, we look like him.  There is a reason people fear death.  It isn't supposed to happen.  Science tells us that the human body will last forever if only cell division would not stop.  I think this is because we are designed to life forever.  Ignorance is a great word, isn't it?    

I have read Nietzshe and Freud, not the other two.  I have heard all sides of the story as well.  I still think mine is best .

[eddie92099]

Again, I will use the intricacy of the human body to further challenge evolution.  Look at the eye.

If god were so great he wouldn't have had the design fault in the eye of the blind spot, would he?
Ed

[IgnazPaderewski]

If god had any sense at all he would have given ed cerebral palsy.

[schnabels_grandson]

If god were so great he wouldn't have had the design fault in the eye of the blind spot, would he?
Ed

If we were perfect there would be no "blind spot".  God intented us to be perfect, sin makes us imperfect.  

[liszmaninopin]

I thought this debate was about contradictions in the Bible, not evolution.  Anyway, the Bible contradicts the physical reality of the world, so that is a contradiction in itself.  (if you want me to support this statement, I will, although I already  have numerous times on other threads)

[chopiabin]

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHIG TO DO WITH WHAT THE ORGANISM "DECIDES" TO DO!!!! Evolution is the product of the environment. If an animal slightly mutated and had some light sensitive cellsthat helped it orient itself more than non-mutated animals, it would have a better chance of survival and hence a better chance of breeding and passing its genes on.

As I said, Death exists because there is no way for something to survive without energy to consume. Evolution is a process that builds on the past, it can not take away things, it can only add. This is why humans have remnants of tails and other things. These things are not evolutionarily necessary so they continue to get smaller, but the genes for them will always exist. This is also why mammals have many organic processes that are identical to those in bacteria.

Also, your staement that scientists have found that if cells do not stop dividing, then there would be no death is false. It has to do with chromosome caps called telomeres. Aging has to do with the chemical breakdown of our bodies. If you want to debate this thibk about it this way: we are evolved from bacteria who were originally groups of chemicals that broke down.

Also, protobionts do reproduce. They have membrabes that absorb certain chemicals and split into two when they are too large. If you know anything about the early earth's atmosphere, then you would understand that this is why all animals have the glycolysis process.

Human beings are simply animals that have developed a higher intelligence than other animals. Funny that you use evolution (in which you do not believe) to justofy what you are saying.

What is easier to believe: that there is an inherent meaning to life and that by believeing in a god all one's "sins" are forgiven and (for most christians) one can gain eternal life or resurrection, or that there is no meaning to life and when we die we die? Religion is simply unconscious wish fulfillment that has been ingrained into society - this is the reason why it still exists.

I DO think ignorance is a funny word.

[schnabels_grandson]

As I said, Death exists because there is no way for something to survive without energy to consume. Evolution is a process that builds on the past, it can not take away things, it can only add. This is why humans have remnants of tails and other things. These things are not evolutionarily necessary so they continue to get smaller, but the genes for them will always exist. This is also why mammals have many organic processes that are identical to those in bacteria.

Also, your staement that scientists have found that if cells do not stop dividing, then there would be no death is false. It has to do with chromosome caps called telomeres. Aging has to do with the chemical breakdown of our bodies. If you want to debate this thibk about it this way: we are evolved from bacteria who were originally groups of chemicals that broke down.

Also, protobionts do reproduce. They have membrabes that absorb certain chemicals and split into two when they are too large. If you know anything about the early earth's atmosphere, then you would understand that this is why all animals have the glycolysis process.

Human beings are simply animals that have developed a higher intelligence than other animals. Funny that you use evolution (in which you do not believe) to justofy what you are saying.

What is easier to believe: that there is an inherent meaning to life and that by believeing in a god all one's "sins" are forgiven and (for most christians) one can gain eternal life or resurrection, or that there is no meaning to life and when we die we die? Religion is simply unconscious wish fulfillment that has been ingrained into society - this is the reason why it still exists.

I DO think ignorance is a funny word.

That's absurd.  Then why wouldn't evolution ADD something to disable the reproductive organs?  

Yes, telomeres.  We die becuase the inability of our cells to synthesize telomerase.  (Telomerase is an enzyme that adds telomere repeat sequences to the 5' end of DNA strands. By lengthening the strand prior to replication, cells with active telomerase are able to compensate for telomere shortening during DNA replication) - taken from https://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Telomeres.html
Telomeres shrink with every mitosis.  When the telomere is gone or almost gone, our cells can no longer divide, thus causing failure of our organs.  If telomeres could be regenerated, we could live infinitely given we don't die of unnatural causes.

[chopiabin]

My point about death is that there is nothing in the environment that would make natural selection produce immortality. The word "fittest" in the sense of natural selection means the one that can reproduce the most and pass on its genes. There is simply nothing to adapt to in the environmenmt that would produce immortality. Also, there have been no mutations in our cells that would cause them to live forever.

[DAwud7]

Well too get back too the bible. Y should one believe the bible when numerous other religions predate the bible by thousands of years and are all very similar too the bible. They have Saviors that are sent down by a divine being too save humanity much as the story of jesus does. Examples would be
Chrishna of Hindostan.
Budha Sakia of India.
Salivahana of Bermuda.
Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
Odin of the Scaudinavians.
Crite of Chaldea.
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.
Indra of Thibet.
Bali of Afghanistan.
Adad of Assyria.
Mikado of the Sintoos.
Beddru of Japan.
Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
Prometheus of Caucasus.
Holy One of Xaca.
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.
All these predate the bible and are similar in philosophy so y choose the bible, or any religion for that matter.

[chopiabin]

I think there are evn some that have a crucifixion story. I'm glad I'm not the onl;y one who has heard this.

[DAwud7]

indeed they do have that in the stories also. And the chrishna story is extremely similar too the jesus story. Now im not saying that the bible has bad values in it, but the fact is bible is just another version of so called pagan stories from thousands of years ago used for control, set in motion by emperor constantine some say his is the picture of jesus we now know because y on earth does jesus resemble a guy from englad with long hair when he should be a darkned sun tanned arab like the other isrealites of his time. ANd too t op it off king james came out with another version of the bible adding obsurd words like thou and other old english terms.

[schnabels_grandson]

indeed they do have that in the stories also. And the chrishna story is extremely similar too the jesus story. Now im not saying that the bible has bad values in it, but the fact is bible is just another version of so called pagan stories from thousands of years ago used for control, set in motion by emperor constantine some say his is the picture of jesus we now know because y on earth does jesus resemble a guy from englad with long hair when he should be a darkned sun tanned arab like the other isrealites of his time. ANd too t op it off king james came out with another version of the bible adding obsurd words like thou and other old english terms.

Well, since I'm way too lazy to look all this crap up, I'll just say one word follwed with a question mark.  Coincidence?  

I think you must be high on dope if you think Constantine had to use religion as a control device.  He claimed to be an honest believer.  By that time though, the popular church's version of christianity was very diluted with doctrines such as the trinity and hellfire (which I'm certain come from other religions).  I agree that some of images of Jesus are extremely unrealistic.  They paint him as being a thin, ghost-like character when he was a perfect, strong and healthy man.  "Israelites" are not arab and their skin is lighter than arabs.  King James?  That version of the bible was made in the 1500's when old English words were still in use.  

[liszmaninopin]

You are right there about people painting Jesus in unrealistic ways.  What I really believe about the guy was that he was a man known among friends and relatives for being honest and good.  Eventually, people came to admire him, and he decided to travel around Israel spreading his wisdom.  I think alot of the modern claims about Jesus stem from Paul's thoughts.  It's amazing how much influence Paul has had on the world's history!  Just think what it would be like if you could write a book with your thoughts that 2000 years down the line billions of people would take as complete truth.  Imagine how the world would be different if Paul said something like "Thou shalt let no man starve..." or "Thou shalt not raise thine hand to thine neighbour..." or something else.  Instead, he had to get preaching hellfire and power-trip.

Israelites are Arab.  Actually, technically speaking, they're both Semitic races (named after Biblical Shem, if I remember correctly)  Perhaps their skin might be a tad lighter today, but that is largely from European jews immigrating to the area.  There is a large body of poor jews of Middle Eastern descent who live in Israel, and are indistinguishable from their Muslim neighbors except for dress customs.  Have you ever noticed that Jesus is nearly always portrayed in America as nearly white?  Why don't they usually give him the honest brown color?

[chopiabin]

I can't imagine that there being over 70 instances of the (nearly) same story  could be a coincidence. All of these "saviors" claimed (or were proclaimed) the son of (a) god, and all were killed or sacrificed in some way to "cleanse the people." It seems to me that these stories (or their plots) could have gotten somehow entangled with tyhe story of Jesus, who was a very good Jewish leader with great ideas who was killed because the Romans thought he was becoming too powerful.

I agree with you about constantine. I don't think he did it to control the people (although his conversion is considered a political move). I think that the human mind looks for comfort and order in everything (especially the unknown ie death) and they saw The story of Christianity as something comforting. It was then passed down as fact for thousands of years until the present in which it is so ingrained that there are people today who fail to look at reason (no offense).  


The reason that Jesus is still paintd as a white guy is that deep down our culture is still very much racist.

[schnabels_grandson]

Posted by: Liszmaninopin Today at 7:05pm
You are right there about people painting Jesus in unrealistic ways.  What I really believe about the guy was that he was a man known among friends and relatives for being honest and good.  Eventually, people came to admire him, and he decided to travel around Israel spreading his wisdom.  I think alot of the modern claims about Jesus stem from Paul's thoughts.  It's amazing how much influence Paul has had on the world's history!  Just think what it would be like if you could write a book with your thoughts that 2000 years down the line billions of people would take as complete truth.  Imagine how the world would be different if Paul said something like "Thou shalt let no man starve..." or "Thou shalt not raise thine hand to thine neighbour..." or something else.  Instead, he had to get preaching hellfire and power-trip.

Israelites are Arab.  Actually, technically speaking, they're both Semitic races (named after Biblical Shem, if I remember correctly)  Perhaps their skin might be a tad lighter today, but that is largely from European jews immigrating to the area.  There is a large body of poor jews of Middle Eastern descent who live in Israel, and are indistinguishable from their Muslim neighbors except for dress customs.  Have you ever noticed that Jesus is nearly always portrayed in America as nearly white?  Why don't they usually give him the honest brown color?  

I assume you were being sarcastic with the remarks about Paul.  If not, there are at least 6 places in Paul's writings that explicitly reiterate Jesus' command to his followers to "love your neighbor as yourself".  Obviously, if one loves their neighbors as themself they will not raise their hand against them.  I am yet to find a scripture that in root language indicates the existence of a literal hell.  Jesus could not simply have been a good man.  Either he was who he said he was, or he was an impostor.  If he was an impostor or a liar, he would have been bad.  If he was who he said he was, his existence has much more impact on the world than an ordinary "good man".  

Maybe they are all a browner color.

Posted by: Chopiabin Today at 7:49pm
I can't imagine that there being over 70 instances of the (nearly) same story  could be a coincidence. All of these "saviors" claimed (or were proclaimed) the son of (a) god, and all were killed or sacrificed in some way to "cleanse the people." It seems to me that these stories (or their plots) could have gotten somehow entangled with tyhe story of Jesus, who was a very good Jewish leader with great ideas who was killed because the Romans thought he was becoming too powerful.

I agree with you about constantine. I don't think he did it to control the people (although his conversion is considered a political move). I think that the human mind looks for comfort and order in everything (especially the unknown ie death) and they saw The story of Christianity as something comforting. It was then passed down as fact for thousands of years until the present in which it is so ingrained that there are people today who fail to look at reason (no offense).  


The reason that Jesus is still paintd as a white guy is that deep down our culture is still very much racist.  

There are at least two distinct differences between Jesus and the rest of these self-proclaimed prophets.  
1. Jesus' status was proclaimed by God himself.  Mathew 3:17 says: "Look!  Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said "This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved".    

2.Over 500 people saw Jesus during the time he spent on Earth after his death and resurection - 1st. Corinthians 15:1-8.

According to the bible, the motives behind Jesus' death were not political.  The pharisees pushed Pilate to order Jesus' death, even releasing a murderer instead of Jesus.  There are no other sources that would imply a political execution.  In fact, Christians didn't come to be persecuted by Rome until the 2nd century.  Obviously, if the Romans were thinking Jesus was a threat, they would have squashed his followers as well.

You may be right about looking for comfort.  I don't think it's fair though, to assume that real christians follow their belief system as a means of escape from the reality of death.  I think that I will be resurected if I die.  However, to say that I only feel this way to avoid the unpleasant feeling associated with thoughts of death is incorrect.  Logically, if I can allow the idea that I may die, I am also comfortable with the idea of staying dead.  It's all in the mind.  Since I don't beleive in eternal torture, I have no extreme fear of death.

I should take no offense unless you are calling me unreasonable.  

Every time I see one of those paintings of Jesus wih the long blond hair and the weak look, I picture in my mind a real person based on that image, walking down the street in a tie-dye shirt, smoking a cigarette and wearing those round sunglasses with the thin wire frame with blue lenses.  In other words, those crappy pictures remind me of hippies.

[eddie92099]

I'd rather worship a hippie than jesus,
Ed

[schnabels_grandson]

Don't get me wrong, hippies are cool too.

[eddie92099]

Too? jesus isn't cool!
Ed

[schnabels_grandson]

Too? jesus isn't cool!
Ed

Not in the normal sense of the word.  In terms of what he has done for humans, he is cool.

[chopiabin]

I don't understand why Jesus would have been a bad guy if he was just a great leader with good ideas.

I'm sure that in most of those other stories, there were "signs" or "voices from god" that proclaimed these "saviors" to be the sons of god. These stories are written out in documents as old or older than the New Testamnet, and were probably witnessed by tons of people as well.

The reason why I say it was possibly for political reasons is that there are documents that dfescribe the martyrdom of numerous other Jewish leaders who were becoming "too powerful" in the eyes of Rome. It seems to me that, because the New Testamnet was written by Jesus's followers, it could easily be biased towards him. They obviously believed that he was the son of god, so the may have (probably unconsciously) interpreted events according to what they wanted to believe.

I'm not saying that those who believe in Christianity are consciously seeking a way to escape death. I'm saying that the escape from death was what got people initially interested thousands of years ago (or when it was introduced into new cultures). It has been taught as fact for so long and people subconsciously want to believe that they will never die (at least not permanently), so there has never been a reason for most people to question it.

I'm not sure, do you believe that Jesus was a           white(esque) guy?  

[nad]

That's absurd.  Then why wouldn't evolution ADD something to disable the reproductive organs?  

Yes, telomeres.  We die becuase the inability of our cells to synthesize telomerase.  (Telomerase is an enzyme that adds telomere repeat sequences to the 5' end of DNA strands. By lengthening the strand prior to replication, cells with active telomerase are able to compensate for telomere shortening during DNA replication) - taken from https://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Telomeres.html
Telomeres shrink with every mitosis.  When the telomere is gone or almost gone, our cells can no longer divide, thus causing failure of our organs.  If telomeres could be regenerated, we could live infinitely given we don't die of unnatural causes.

I find it quite amusing how you wish to use biological (or to be more specific, analytical biochemistry) research and proof to support your statements without believing and thereby accepting the basic foundation of biological sciences.

[eddie92099]

In terms of what he has done for humans, he is cool.

I'm sure he thinks the same of you. Apart from the fact that he has been dead for almost 2000 years of course...
Ed

[schnabels_grandson]

I'm not sure, do you believe that Jesus was a      white(esque) guy?

No, I do think he was brown(esque).

I find it quite amusing how you wish to use biological (or to be more specific, analytical biochemistry) research and proof to support your statements without believing and thereby accepting the basic foundation of biological sciences.

Like I said, not all biologists and scientists agree on the "basic foundation of biological sciences", therefore there is no basic foundation.  Too much is undertemined in science to make any "basic foundation" certain. I don't see why you should be amused by my thinking when there is nothing funny about it.  I guess you said that to condescend to me.  It didn't make me feel stupid so the jokes on you.

[schnabels_grandson]

I'm sure he thinks the same of you. Apart from the fact that he has been dead for almost 2000 years of course...
Ed

According to the bible, Jesus ascended to heaven after his death.  He no longer has a physical body but he exists now as a spirit.  I know I sound like a fanatic but I believe what I believe and if you're not comfortable with it, please don't belittle me.  

Another thing about the difference between Jesus and these other self-styled prophets:

Jesus' coming was foretold 700 years in advance in great detail.  If you want me to explain I will.  

The reason Jesus would have been a bad person is this:  He stated that he was the son of god, and the messiah.  If he was lying about this, he would be bad.  Lying=Bad.

[nad]

I don't see why you should be amused by my thinking when there is nothing funny about it.  I guess you said that to condescend to me.  It didn't make me feel stupid so the jokes on you.

Like i said, "i find", it is an opinion just like your opinion on the bible. So yes, i can find it funny and yes, you can find the bible has the only correct explanations for numerous things.
I cant help it if my opinion makes you feel put down (pardon my crappy english, i'm tired).

[schnabels_grandson]

Like i said, "i find", it is an opinion just like your opinion on the bible. So yes, i can find it funny and yes, you can find the bible has the only correct explanations for numerous things.
I cant help it if my opinion makes you feel put down (pardon my crappy english, i'm tired).

No worries, your opinion doesn't bother me.  About your English, it's ok, I'm used to it.

[DAwud7]

Ok first too start Constatine did indeed use christianity for control and there is alot of references in books about him using his own portrait as jesus. He did this for control much as The russian leaders ivan the great and before him became christian too unite and the viking clans did the same they became christians for power because it united once rivaling clans under the same banner High on dope funny someone who believes that Israelites are not arabs seems too me high on dope because it even states in the bible the two brothers Ishmael being the father of the muslim nation and abraham the isrealites. And also they mere appearance is the same the white light skinned jews u cee are converts not having the same blood of a true israeli but they are jews because they folow the religion.
Also to say that the other stories and the jesus story being so similar is a Coincidence is insane, these stroeis pre date christianity some by thousands of years now tid bits of these stories and others where mixed with the life of a great man YEshua the lion Jesus or Isa in arabic and hence u have the bible the new testament, is it also a coincidence that the old testament bears so much in common too persian and babylonian pagan religions that they could be the same with only one thing changed the use of one god YEt this is even disputed when in Translation u actually have numerous gods in the old testament Different Names of god of course a christian will tell u these names mean the same god names like EL a pagan god Elohim another god and the other i cannot think of as i studied this a while back when i was part of some religous groups but the other is actually very close in name too a babylonian god of the day. And would u really trust a known rapist and murderer King James as a viable translator of gods word. And yes your right about the romans not persecuting Christians u know Y there where none at the time of jesus death Jesus Was a JEW and his foloowers also ok and it is known that the jews were being persecuted at this time period and before Slave labor and other things. Also the two things that seperate christianity from other religions these cannot be proven the other religions had a spirit or god claiming thier son was his representative on earth, and u are telling me that the dahli lamas had no witnesses? ok. And the thing about jesus being foretold many civilizations had fortune tellers look at the kaballah for this they tell fortunes and futures this is from the old testament mystical jews. And all kings in power had seers in those days egeyptians assyrians babylonians Kushites. OK Heres a Question 6thGen or anyone else how old is the earth? and how old is the earth according too the bible?

[DAwud7]

ok The Blanked out spots should be SH Kus hittes a group from ethiopia acient civilization.