Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[maul]

Indeed. Satan is a horrible entity. I mean, not wanting to bow down and be someone's slave. How absolutely evil.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sure god physically killed a lot of people but they where already spiritually dead so they really killed themselves. God even lets the good people die as well, but we as Christians are not discouraged by this. Death is not Bad, it is a neutral indifferent force. To say God killed this many and Satan killed this many is only relevant to those who actually believe in these two entities. For those who do not belief or are atheists they will find themselves however agreeing with this data, even though they do not believe in either of the two! Why? Because they have fallen into the trap of convincing themselves of their OWN facts by selective observation.

By the way, you will only see the vengeful angry god in the Old Testament and the very kind gentle one in the New Testament. Just how the Bible juxtaposes Jesus and Elijah to highlight the spirit of Christianity. Where Elijah killed hundreds of soldiers with fire Jesus submitted and let himself die on a cross. Where in the Old Testament God rubs out the unfaithful, in the new he gives the unfaithful a gift of salvation. It is a delicate weave of knowledge how the bible contrasts things like violence, hopelessness and death with love, hope and life. If those who do not study the bible simply take out small windows of information out of it and twist it to prove an irrellavent point it can confuse some and make those who think the same feel better, pretty destructive rubbish if u ask me.

So the information about the deaths God and Satan have cause is just useless. Satan is quite smart didn't you know that? You might still be breathing but spiritually you actually on your last legs.

Physical death is uncontrollable (unless you suicide, but when we die we often cannot control when it happens,although lifestyle choices can elongate our life etc). Spiritual death is a choice. However when you physically die you can no longer ever make changes to yourself because yourself does not exist no more, spiritual death allows you to live on but encourage others to live a dead life. You are like a virus spreading around infecting many other lost people, then when you die all that remains is your legacy of doubt and denial or the result from your worship of living in the physical world.

[thalbergmad]

If those who do not study the bible simply take out small windows of information out of it and twist it to prove an irrellavent point it can confuse some and make those who think the same feel better, pretty destructive rubbish if u ask me.

Those who do study the Bible can be accused in the same fashion.

Even more so, those who decided what went in an what was left out.

Thal

[hlbessinger]

Braiwashed from birth? So sending little children in droves to schools for twelve years, and indoctranating them with the idea that they evolved from pond scum, and that their life is meaningless, and that the complex world we live in just came from nothing is not brainwashing? Whether you like it or not you have probably been brainwashed yourself more times than you would care to think about. And yes I am a Christian and a creationist, but I was in no way biased when I decided what I believe. I have read the works of Darwin and the Bible and I made my own decision based on the evidence, (or lack thereof.) Darwin himself said that the human body is so complex that it could have never come about by chance. I bet no one ever told you that, they were to busy "brainwashing" you. And as for the corupption of the church I completly  agree with you. If you would actually read the Bible you would find out that Jesus said that many people would "profess to know him"(A.K.A. people who say they are christians but aren't.) But in the end he would cast them away from him. So your hypocrites are not even christians. And truthfully the thing that really gets to me is this evolution balony. Talk about brainwashing. These guys are so scared that they will fire a teacher if they dare mention creation. But if you examine the evidence, both ideas are at the same level. Theory. So why are they so afraid to let students make their own desision. Why are they so set on "brainwashing" people? Maybe they're just plain scared. Evolution is the house of cards that holds of Athieism. If one card gets pulled out, the whole thing crumbles. By the way in your post you were commiting a fallacy of logic called "repitition." That is where you say emotional things over and over again to get the person your talking to emotionaly exited so they don't weigh what you say by the evidence but by the redudant emotions. It's kind of like "brainwashing." I'll stop now because I know the minute I said I was a christian you stopped reading this anyway. But if you are still there, I don't want you to rush to the altar crying "Jesus save me." All I ask is that you study both sides objectively. All brainwashing aside. But why did I even say that. You've already been brainwashed and it won't help. Besides you are probably too scared.

[thalbergmad]

I'll stop now because I know the minute I said I was a christian you stopped reading this anyway.

Not the case with me, but i did nearly stop reading as you fail to grasp the importance of using paragraphs.

Your multifaceted rant really failed to make a point and was very similar to an ex member with extreme and immovable views.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

Those who do study the Bible can be accused in the same fashion.

How can we be accused of selectively reading the bible to make our own assumptions? Sure some Christian offshoots might do so but that is a whole new issue. The teachings of Christianity leave little room for interpretation since the teachings are reflected throughout the bible. If you are talking outside of the bible that is another discussion which has no relevance with being Christian or not.

Even more so, those who decided what went in an what was left out.
Thal

A lot of people say that the modern bible today resembles little of what it might have been. It has been proven that the accuracy of todays bible to what it originally was is close to 99%. If you want proof of this you have to read the academic books on this I have no real wish to write pages introducing this topic or start comparing ancient texts with the modern.

For the non-christian to care about what was left in or out without even appreciating what is currently in the bible seems to me illogical. I would say that this argument that "We cant be sure that what is in the Bible is actually useful or accurate." is often used as a reason to NOT research the Bible. This to me seems illogical. If there are things not accurate or useful then what are they? Are you simply paranoid that what is written is by some figure trying to control you in a certain way? If so what parts of the Bible make you think this way?

Most people do not even start a relationship with God because of either fear or apathy. There is no other reason. You cannot logically disprove God but you can logically prove him. The effects of God are seen everywhere, the psychological benefits in believing in a God can be measured in clinical psych data. If you now start to debate the Word of God do you really know what you are getting yourself into? Do you have reverence for God? If not you are getting into waters deeper than you could ever handle. What I mean by saying that is that if you really want to stand up against critiquing the Word of God you better have some good evidence to back up your stance.

From what I have seen from books published by Atheists is that their message is full of personal glory, twisted thinking, and evidence which crumbles against the Word of God because it misses the point completely. If the Word of God was a baseball match they would be critiquing how the grains of sand where shifted on base 2 to appreciate how the game was played. They are always totally lost in their direction of thought when critiquing the Word.

...Whether you like it or not you have probably been brainwashed yourself more times than you would care to think about. ..

Brainwashing puts us in a state where we feel have no choice in the matter. We are too scared to change the path we are on because of many psychological/physiological ties. We all however have a choice and we learn as we grow to even make choices when we are afraid or unsure when we must (something Christianity helps us a great deal in). However these things might be natural when we live in the material world, when it comes to our spiritual guidance the urgency might not be apparent. Many of us simply remain undecided or build a case to encourage themselves not to investigate it.

I think we have to be careful not to misuse the term "brainwashing". Some people might think that a mother is brainwashed to look after her children or someone is brainwashed being addicted to drugs etc. The reality is that we all have choice however some are so emotionally involved they have little choice, some are so battered down and hurt that they have no ability to make choices and just lie there and let things happen without input. The choice that prisons of war have, and the fear pushing against it, it really might resemble our own life situation sometimes. We can tend to brainwash ourselves. We should all encourage one another I think that is our duty to each other friend or stranger.

I'll stop now because I know the minute I said I was a christian you stopped reading this anyway.

I wouldn't assume that. Besides if people don't listen to you just because you are a Christian then they probably don't listen to many more people thus have very limited wisdom. Not writing in paragraphs probably will make more people not listen to you than being Christian would cause

[thalbergmad]

If you are talking outside of the bible that is another discussion which has no relevance with being Christian or not.
A lot of people say that the modern bible today resembles little of what it might have been. It has been proven that the accuracy of todays bible to what it originally was is close to 99%. If you want proof of this you have to read the academic books on this I have no real wish to write pages introducing this topic or start comparing ancient texts with the modern.

It is absurd to think that anything outside of the bible has no relevance with being a Christian or not. Did Jesus or God decide what was left in or out?, No, it was man. The Bible says what man wants it to say.

Secondly, i do want proof as i feel your claim is bordering on the impossible. Whilst i have criticised people in the past for just posting links and not writing their own proof, on this occasion, i do ask for direction.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The effects of God are seen everywhere

Burma, China

[thalbergmad]

If you now start to debate the Word of God do you really know what you are getting yourself into? Do you have reverence for God? If not you are getting into waters deeper than you could ever handle. What I mean by saying that is that if you really want to stand up against critiquing the Word of God you better have some good evidence to back up your stance.

I have met people like you in so called "Alpha" courses. People who would condemn their own children to hell because they would not accept the word of God. Your own paragraph is loaded with "fear" tactics. "You are getting into waters deeper than you could ever handle". You do not know this for a fact, it is fire breathing rubbish, the kind that one would expect from 19th century missionaries.

To answer your question, I do have reverence for God, but I do not see that i have to be a Christian to have it. In addition, it is not God that strikes fear into me, it is some of the people that supposedly do his work.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It has been proven that the accuracy of todays bible to what it originally was is close to 99%.

Presumably including the contradictions.

You cannot logically disprove God but you can logically prove him.

A comment whiich will doubtless be of great interest to philosphers the world over.

The effects of God are seen everywhere, the psychological benefits in believing in a God can be measured in clinical psych data.

That is known as the placebo effect.

Brainwashing puts us in a state where we feel have no choice in the matter.

Absolutely agreed.

If you now start to debate the Word of God do you really know what you are getting yourself into?

Yes. Long and futile discussions which waste everyone's time.

*withdraws from the thread to do something more useful*

[prometheus]

lostinidlewonder has always be worse than Pianistimo.

[pianogeek_cz]

Whilst i have criticised people in the past for just posting links and not writing their own proof, on this occasion, i do ask for direction.

Thal

*chuckles, just a little*

Presumably including the contradictions.

You know, maybe contradictions are an indication of what is and, more importantly, what isn't the point of the given passage. Or would you read Aisopos's Fables for zoological data?

A comment whiich will doubtless be of great interest to philosphers the world over.

May I suggest St. Thomas Aquinas, for as start?

[gyzzzmo]

Debating about whether a god excists or not is rather nonsense since all proof of some god is based on 'belief'. If i'm missing some 'proof' wich is actually founded, you should ofcourse point that out to me.

Its much more interesting for discussion what the effect of those religions are (especially Christianity) with hopefully the effect that people dare critisising religion in public more  

[pianogeek_cz]

Debating about whether a god excists or not is rather nonsense since all proof of some god is based on 'belief'. If i'm missing some 'proof' wich is actually founded, you should ofcourse point that out to me.

More precisely, it's not a matter of prove/disprove; it's more that the existence* of God is perfectly in accordance with reason; however, reason by itself - that is, when you cut off everything other than reason (I'm hesitant to use the term pure reason because that might imply too much of a Kantian perspective) - can also come to the conclusion that there is no God**. Parmenides and Aristotle would provide a good start, too.

I think it is important to contemplate the nature of existence, of being, pretty hard, in order to understand what is meant by the words "There is [no] God"... by the way, using the indefinite article with God is another linguistic finesse...

____________________________
*which is, by the way, a very interesting verb to use with God. Again, see Aquinas...
**again, the wording is kind of ironic...

[thalbergmad]

Its much more interesting for discussion what the effect of those religions are (especially Christianity) with hopefully the effect that people dare critisising religion in public more  

Christianity no longer has the hold over people that it used to (or at least in my Country).

When i was a kid, I had to go to church or i would not get into the school my parents wanted me to attend. When i got into that school, again i was force fed Christianity first thing in the morning, last thing at afternoon and during daily lessons. It was taught as indisputable fact and anyone that said anything else was going to be slippered.

Thankfully, this child abuse does not take place at my old school any longer. Children have to attend assembly, but do not have to take part in prayers. Religious education is optional and other faiths are taught as well. I wonder how many others like me were given no choice?

Over the last 40 years or so, i have lost count of the amount of churches in my area that have closed. My local vicar is afraid that his church will go the same way as young people are no longer attending. I think the youngest person in the choir is about 80 and on sundays, the congregation can sometimes struggle to get into double figures.

So, i am wondering if people believe because they want to or because they had to.

Thal

[term]

So, i am wondering if people believe because they want to or because they had to.

Thal

Obviously, it starts out as a wish and then becomes a duty. This is true in the historic and in the individual sense.
Pretty sad things happening where you live. I think its the most comforting thing to see people go to church in the societies of our times, but thats just me.

[gyzzzmo]

Obviously, it starts out as a wish and then becomes a duty. This is true in the historic and in the individual sense.
Pretty sad things happening where you live. I think its the most comforting thing to see people go to church in the societies of our times, but thats just me.

I would only encourage people stop going to the church. I think that the origin of religion comes from misery, and believe gives hope in that misery. The absence of religion somewhere is a sign of prosperity and luck for me.

[thalbergmad]

Obviously, it starts out as a wish and then becomes a duty.

For me it was the other way around. It started as a duty and now i go if i wish.

Because i love organs, i seem to spend a lot of time in churches, but do not always attend services. One of the best services i have ever attended was at St Sulpice in Paris, probably because i could not understand a word that was spoken.

Oh, probably one of the best organs as well.

Thal

[ahinton]

Christianity no longer has the hold over people that it used to (or at least in my Country).

When i was a kid, I had to go to church or i would not get into the school my parents wanted me to attend. When i got into that school, again i was force fed Christianity first thing in the morning, last thing at afternoon and during daily lessons. It was taught as indisputable fact and anyone that said anything else was going to be slippered.

Thankfully, this child abuse does not take place at my old school any longer.

Thank God (sorry!) that this never happened to me. I have never been force-fed any religion at any time. Perhaps I should consider myself very fortunate in this.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Because i love organs, i seem to spend a lot of time in churches, but do not always attend services. One of the best services i have ever attended was at St Sulpice in Paris, probably because i could not understand a word that was spoken.

Oh, probably one of the best organs as well.

Oh, come on - what about Westminster Cathedral and Westminster Abbey (each far nearer to you)? Or that of Chiesa di Santa Maria del Precipitato Rosso (aka the Church of St. Mary Redcliffe), Bristol? But if organs interest you that much, please check out this one:
https://www.sorabji-organ.org/instruments.html

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Totally off subject, but I feel french organ builders in general were superior.

In Westminster Abbey, you get 2 concerts for the price of 1.

Thal

[shortyshort]

Thank God (sorry!) that this never happened to me. I have never been force-fed any religion at any time. Perhaps I should consider myself very fortunate in this.

I also feel very lucky to have had the same experience.

[lostinidlewonder]

It is absurd to think that anything outside of the bible has no relevance with being a Christian or not.

It is funny how people think that an internet message board can be used as a device to try to prove people wrong. In fact it is very relevant that we only talk about the bible, I was talking about how people where using numbers of deaths caused by god and the devil as bad information relating directly to the bible. Then you piped up and said christians do selective reading everywhere, then I said, please stay with the bible itself and explain where you think they have done selective reading. So you babbling really means nothing because it is ignoring the grounds on which we are supposed to be in discussion.

I have met people like you in so called "Alpha" courses. People who would condemn their own children to hell because they would not accept the word of God. Your own paragraph is loaded with "fear" tactics.

Sorry you have missed my point and are trying to tag me as some fear mongering Christian which I am far from. Again don't try to accuse a person themselves becuase it makes you look very stupid, you do not know someone well enough to tag them, I never tagged you as anything I mearly say do you really think when you say something or are you just saying things to hear your own voice. If anyone critiques Chritianity on pianostreet they have yet to prove themselves with well thought out critique.

Presumably including the contradictions.

Opinion with no evidence again. Give me exactly what you are referring to so we can see how strong this opinion you say actually is.

A comment whiich will doubtless be of great interest to philosphers the world over.

That is known as the placebo effect.

If God is a placebo effect another opinion with no evidence. People tend to confuse effects by trying to describe what it is in indifferent human terms, useless. Perhaps some people might feel this way but this is irrelevant to what the truth is.



You know when i have discussion on Christianity with anyone you tend to learn to dismiss those who have no point and no relevance and no evidence in what they say. Unfortunately on internet chat forums like Piano street you will have peope how actually know very little about topics like Christianity and talk as if they know a lot. It is a big joke, we all can see those who know what they are talking about and those who are just spewing out opinion with nothing to back themselves up. Through this entire thread no one has actually shown how chritianity is wrong or bad, but we have proven how it is beneficial. People tend to tangent all over the place thus the direction of the arguments tangent all over the place, it would be nice for people to actually try to support what thye are saying without trying to just throw opinion out at people, it is what adults who try to discuss something serious do.

lostinidlewonder has always be worse than Pianistimo.

Worse at what? Sounds like a comment out of your bank of personal opinion. It doesn't have much to benefit other people except I guess you get personal gratification of trying to judge someone as worse. Seems lame and pointless to me.

I would only encourage people stop going to the church. I think that the origin of religion comes from misery, and believe gives hope in that misery. The absence of religion somewhere is a sign of prosperity and luck for me.

This is the fear base which discourages people from sharing their spiritual connection with God with others. The origin of Christianity was hardly "giving hope in misery" as you say. In fact if you look back at human history it was those with strange religious beliefs who where killed and wiped out, Christians where firstly in that category as the mainstream powers suppressed them and stopped them from worship. So by following christianity in the early days it was hardly to benefit your life because you probably would be made a martyr back then if you admitted you where a Christian. No Christianity was much different it first started out as first hand and second hand witnesses to the fact that the dead are brought back to life with the ressurection.

And these people where willing to die for it which many of them did. Some people might argue that people die for many things they read in their religion but none of them do it because of what people had seen with their own eyes. Someone might die for the Koran but they are dying for a word which was written in a cave with no witnesses. People died for Christ because of what they had actually seen with their own eyes. This evidence is useless to the ears of the agnostic or atheist because they refuse to think on terms in which they have a disagreement to.

Then the mainstream powers found that this Christianity had such a force on people and ended up making a system of their own to control the people Roman Catholic Church. But Christianity always had nothing to do with the main authorative figures, however they adopted chritianity to their own ways and nowadays most people do not see the difference between one church denomination to the other.

The effects of God are seen everywhere... Burma, China

This type of logic is ridiculous if it is trying to be used to shed negative light on a God. If you use it this way then you should look on the other side of the coin too, what miracles happen every day. But it is a lot easier to look at the bad and use that as evidence that God is not there, or is a force which plays with our life. Most people will use the information that God is like a Clockmaker, that he has created everything then he just lets it run its course. But this is a whole new discussion.

[thalbergmad]

It is funny how people think that an internet message board can be used as a device to try to prove people wrong.

It is also funny how people think that an internet message board can be used as a device to prove themselves right. You say others are spewing out opinion with nothing to back themselves up, but you are doing exactly the same yourself.

I am afraid you have "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" syndrome. Like pianistimo, i feel your method is to bore people to death with long and meaningless drivel until they can no longer be bothered to enter into debate.

I have now reached this stage myself, so that is the end from me on this subject. Cleaning the bog seat would be more meaningful.

God bless you.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Someone might die for the Koran but they are drying for a word which was written in a cave with no witnesses. People died for Christ because of what they had actually seen with their own eyes.

This is disgusting, not only do you have to trumpet the religion that you believe in, but you have to try to belittle another faith. If you have true faith, you do not need witnesses anyway.

Some might think that your religion is as much baseless nonsense as any other.

Thal

[term]

This is disgusting, not only do you have to trumpet the religion that you believe in, but you have to try to belittle another faith. If you have true faith, you do not need witnesses anyway.

Well that, i must say, is a very true word. And i also agree that it's quite unfortunate that lostinidlewonder also gets lost in a myriad of words that do not outline a clear statement or argument, because i think he's taking the right part.
First, quit that quotewar. Get the essence of what your opponent is trying to say and counter it - you'll save words. Answer short and spicy if you face short and provocative statements.  Less is more sometimes. I've got a bible at home 

[ahinton]

Less is more sometimes. I've got a bible at home 

Was that an intentional or an accidental contradiction in terms?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I think i will put my Bible next to Dawkins.

They can fight it out between them.

Thal

[ahinton]

I think i will put my Bible next to Dawkins.

They can fight it out between them.

Thal

Will you act as referee? Will you take bets on the outcome?

Best,

Alistair

[chopininov]

I like the bible. Makes for some good science fiction reading.

[lostinidlewonder]

It is also funny how people think that an internet message board can be used as a device to prove themselves right. You say others are spewing out opinion with nothing to back themselves up, but you are doing exactly the same yourself.

I haven't said anything that reflects my opinion everything I have said which relates to the bible is knowledge build from other academics and individuals who study Christianity all their life. It is one of the most important subjects in my life so I will encourage elaboration from anyone who proclaims it is bad without any evidence.

I have hardly said anything which is of my own opinion rather something which can be supported by evidence and be explained if one is interested in theology as a whole (which most people here are not.) I will say all opinion is just that and useless if it has nothing to support it. I have not been given anything which requires evidence as I have simply been debunking the crap other people have said. I have mearly pointed out ideas from non-christians on this board are not thought out or with any basis. Where have I suggested anything new to discuss? I mearly react to what anti christian statements have been made.


I don't take anything PERSONALLY on here like some people. This is just a melting pot for ideas.

I am afraid you have "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" syndrome. Like pianistimo, i feel your method is to bore people to death with long and meaningless drivel until they can no longer be bothered to enter into debate.

This just highlights paranoia that this is a competition of wits, that we have to try to prove something. I don't want anyone to feel this way, perhaps in your life experience you have had people shove christian ideas, I can't blame you for your reaction but I just want to say I'm not competing I just want people to support what they say whent hey critique Christianity. What we KNOW and THINK are 2 different things. We should always Think something but search for the way to KNOW it. Theological discussions should have a battle between what each party Thinks and we should leave it there. Do not try to criticise what we think we KNOW, if this makes sense? If it does then there is no hard feelings to what people say for it all helps us on our path to knowledge.

This is disgusting, not only do you have to trumpet the religion that you believe in, but you have to try to belittle another faith. If you have true faith, you do not need witnesses anyway.

If you want to research all religions and see which evidence supports them, then the witness to the ressurection, or the witness to the Koran (as an example) is essential. To those who are reading what I say on a simplistic attacking model, I feel sorry you have misinterpreted what I say. I should realise not everyone is interested in how to investigate religions. In no way am I saying because the witness to the Koran was "worse" than the Christian witness that this makes Muslims wrong. I am just saying this is the evidence that is there what we do with it is a personal matter but we should realise it is only one little tiny puzzle piece. The context in which I used this comparison was to highlight the fact that Christianity was not rooted in "giving hope in misery". There is no hoping in Christianity just a knowing that there is a ressurection and what this means for our life. God is the God of Life afterall. It was the Witness which tore a huge hole in the Jewish culture and tradition like no other, in the form of Christ's ressurection. This is undeniably written in ancient non-christian history books for all to see.  This highlights the strength of the witness of Christs ressurection to the faith Christianity gives. It  simply not fueled with hope in misery.

What makes Chrisitanity totally unique amongst all religions is that it is fueled by a Witness which can be methodically measuered if you want to study ancient historical texts which affim that this so called "witness" caused a major change in thousand+ year old Jewish culture. What people tend to neglect to appreciate is that a major change in Jewish culture is a very big thing. What makes Jews Jews is the strict requirement to maintain tradition, language, religious teachings. This major disruption in Jewish culture is full of evidence which points towards the fact that Christ actually died on the cross and rose. It is by no means a small topic to study or ever appreciated on a message board.

[term]

Was that an intentional or an accidental contradiction in terms?

Speaking of contradictions, there is one between an intelligent remark and your statement.

[ahinton]

Speaking of contradictions, there is one between an intelligent remark and your statement.

What statement? If you are referring to the sentence of mine that you quoted, it is not a statement at all but a question - and questions cannot of themselves "contradict"...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have hardly said anything which is of my own opinion rather something which can be supported by evidence and be explained if one is interested in theology as a whole (which most people here are not.) I will say all opinion is just that and useless if it has nothing to support it.

Thank you for your response which i found interesting.

There has been a lot of use of the word evidence of late, but we have not seen any. Do you think you could point me in the right direction in finding evidence of the crucifiction and ressurection, that is preferrably 1st hand or near contemporary.

I am interested in this subject, albeit knowhere near as well read as you might be yourself.

Thanks

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

For historical documentation of the Jesus crucifixion one could for example look at Thallus (a non christian historian) account written around 50AD. Written so close to the event of Christ's Crucifixion we can be pretty much 100% sure it is reliable. Most historical documents are accepted as truth if they are even more than 200 years after the fact written in ancient history! Thallus found the crucifixion such a controversial moment in Jewish history that he tries to explain away the darkness that fell when Jesus died on the cross as some solar event. This is only one bit of evidence you can certainly Google more if you are interested there is no point in me doing that work for you If you research the time in which the New Testament was written you will find they where written in a time where there where first hand and even second hand witness to the Resurrection.
https://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
https://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-tacitus.php

[thalbergmad]

Thanks, I will investigate this.

I have always been a little disturbed that the Bible says very little about Jesus between the age of 12 to 30. I am just reading a book called "The Magi" which partially covers this subject.

Do you think that Jesus could have been in Egypt, and if so, could that have affected his teaching and mission.

Regards

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

For historical documentation of the Jesus crucifixion one could for example look at Thallus (a non christian historian) account written around 50AD. Written so close to the event of Christ's Crucifixion we can be pretty much 100% sure it is reliable. Most historical documents are accepted as truth if they are even more than 200 years after the fact written in ancient history! Thallus found the crucifixion such a controversial moment in Jewish history that he tries to explain away the darkness that fell when Jesus died on the cross as some solar event. This is only one bit of evidence you can certainly Google more if you are interested there is no point in me doing that work for you If you research the time in which the New Testament was written you will find they where written in a time where there where first hand and even second hand witness to the Resurrection.
https://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
https://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-tacitus.php

Still no proof of ressurrection. And lots of stories have been written down about 'sons of god', but these days you find them back in medical files since people are smart enough these days to see that they're not right in the head.

But fair is fair, you did provide some 'proof', but you probably understand too that things like that cant be proven and that that's the reason why people call it believing

[ahinton]

No proof of the Resurrection? Bah, humbug! Read your Bible! That's to say the four-volume study of Mahler by Henri-Louis de la Grange - all 4,000 or so pages of it...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Do you think that Jesus could have been in Egypt, and if so, could that have affected his teaching and mission.

You have to study the Old Testament prophecy of the life of the Messiah. Christ had to fulfill a certain requirement, written in the Old Testament which tell the Jews how to identify the Messiah. That is why there are Jews and Christians, essentially the same except they stand either side of the debate that Christ fulfilled the characteristics of the Messiah. Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:14-15 some reference regarding Christ living in Egypt. Did this effect his teaching and mission? The result we see now is how it effected him, I don't think I can measure it though.

...you did provide some 'proof', but you probably understand too that things like that cant be proven and that that's the reason why people call it believing

There is not believing when it comes to these ancient historians such as Josephus and Tacitus.  They actually did exist and what they wrote is considered historically relevant. You will get some people trying to debate the validity of these ancient historians, how the text has been corrupted. These are valid remarks but they do not statistically hold up as there are more than one or two bits of evidence pointing towards the fact that there was a Historical Christ who died on a Cross and was Resurrected. You cannot say everything is corrupt, hopefully if humanity survives another 2000 years they don't look back at our history and think, "oh it is made up!".

Studying ancient historians requires that you understand how they wrote and what their ideological stances might have been, what authorities they worked for etc. When you look at Tacitus for example, he was hardly a Christian sympathiser, they where pagans and dangerous in his mind, so why would he bother to include them in an account of history?

Of all those who do not believe that Christ actually existed I would ask, do you believe that Caesar and Cleopatra existed? Most of them will say of course they existed but on the other hand deny that Christ existed. This is very strange for there is more historical evidence that Christ existed than there is for Caesar and Cleopatra put together.

[term]

There is not believing when it comes to these ancient historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. 

I think he meant the resurrection specifically which is still based on a belief, and is not historically documented or proven.

[timothy42b]

Do you think that Jesus could have been in Egypt, and if so, could that have affected his teaching and mission.

Regards

Thal

There are actually 20 gospels still around, not just 4.  See a decent translation called The Complete Gospels, available at your local library.

Now, those other 16 did not make it into the "canon."  However, they are contemporaneous with the four that did, and they were in wide use by some congregations of early Christians and offer great insight into what the early church believed.  And some of them have more detail about the missing years.  

[lostinidlewonder]

I think he meant the resurrection specifically which is still based on a belief, and is not historically documented or proven.

The Resurrection can also be measured as Historical fact, but how people weigh this evidence can differ, certainly the bits of evidence you find shouldn't make you think a yes or no answer but rather a tendency to lean in a particular direction. Most will eventually accept that Christ died on the cross, then they will come to the next task to believe in the Resurrection.

For those that need evidence I think initially studying how the Chrisitan movement began is very interesting. You can certainly measure its effect on the Jewish culture and see that there has been nothing else in history that has caused such a tear in their religious belief. Seeing Christs effects on the Jewish culture is very important because if Christ simply died on the cross and never rose then all his followers would have known he had lied to them. I would think that Christianity would have died right there in its tracks if Christ didn't rise, we can see how depressed all the followers where while Christ lay in the tomb. If Christianity carried on and Christ had not risen, this is even a greater mystery!! How on earth can a lie cause such a monumental change in stubborn Jewish religious perspectives (changes of which some ancient Roman Historians thought important enough to mention as one of the most dangerous cults to rise at the time).

It is furthermore interesting to see how the Roman's eventually embraced Christianity in their own form and used it to control society. This really starts us understanding how Christianity was contorted and there are many more contortions and corruptions of the Christian faith. (If this is bad or not is another discussion). Mormons or Jehovah's Witness are two other more modern day examples of Christian offshoots who corrupt the Word and have misinterpreted. No religion of all the religions out there is as various as Christianity. It seems like we all Worship the same Christ and God, but certainly how some denominations have directed their focus in worship can make you worship on human terms not Gods.

I seriously cannot compile a complete argument on this message board that Christ was Resurrected by showing the historical evidence, it is too vast of a task and I'm not a professional in the field. If you are interested in this all the information is there and written by highly respected academics.

[thalbergmad]

Most will eventually accept that Christ died on the cross, then they will come to the next task to believe in the Resurrection.

I am not aware of any statistics that would warrant the use of the word "most". If Christ did die on the cross, he did not last very long.

The next task is substantially harder to accept. As you rightly said before, ones reaserch leads to leaning one way or the other.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not aware of any statistics that would warrant the use of the word "most". If Christ did die on the cross, he did not last very long.

What do you mean by he did not last very long? The Christ myth acceptance is quite a marginalized perspective on the historical facts. More people who are interested in researching if Christ died on the cross will come to the conclusion that he actually did die on the cross. If you do not you simply have a vast task of explaining away a lot of things. No one of yet has refuted the facts that there was a Historical Christ who was persecuted and died a humiliating death.

I find that those who do not believe that Christ existed have no basis for this thinking. They either do not care about his existance, which is a different matter which does not highlight the fact that he existed or not, or they simply think he did not exist because it is left up to belief, which is also not an excuse because they are unwilling to research.

For those who disbelieve that Christ actually died on the cross I like to hear their reason why. If they say there is no proof this is not a reason because there is tons of proof to sift though. What proof do you disagree with? It is not an excuse to say, tell me the proof because this is a lazy way, you simply want to be spoonfed and then critique everything with, well it can mean anything, I'm not going to make a decision as to which way it tends towards I will just say it could be anything and everything is still left up to your own belief. I think this is a passive way to live your life.

I'd treat studying Christ serious, there are so many clues to finding where he is, they all directly but push you in a direction for you to research through a particular path until you can look at all of the bits of information and finally a solid case for Christ starts to emerge. But do you know this is not necessary for most followers of Christ. This path is a very intellectually laborious  task which would make finding your way to Christianity quite difficult for most. I think looking at the messages Christianity gives is important, it is a unique one amongst all religions, why is it unique is an important thing to research. I think the easiest way to research religions for most is to simply believe that they are all correct and then weigh up which one you think is best. Here we have to see what factors helped make our decision, which people with more wisdom on the topic have you talked with and debated questions you have thought about? If everything has been done on your own I really doubt you have researched into matters well enough.

Proving Christ died on the Cross is not so difficult, but proving he Resurrected is a little more. This is not to say that you cannot come to the conclusion that Christ actually did rise. I found an interesting way to try to prove the Christ Resurrection was trying to explain the effects Christianity had on the early Jewish Culture in two ways, in ways that the Christ Resurrection was a scam and in a way that the Christ Resurrection was a fact. You find that it is incredibly confusing to see it in the light that the Resurrection was a scam, how can we explain the early Christian martyrdom, or such a powerful change in the Jewish Culture which spread all over so much so that the Roman authorities found it influential enough to adopt the Christian religion in their own model.

It is wrong to think that these Early Christians where delusional because God was the most important thing to Jews. So explaining the things these people did becomes very difficult and confusing if they were not encouraged by the Resurrection. They must have realised Christ was the Messiah because they could reference his works to the prophecy in Old testament which spoke of the Son of God.

So, if we initially establish that that Christ did die on the cross, then we will accept that there were a lot of followers of Christ who would have witnessed the fact that their master had died. How did they manage to continue on if their Master had remained dead? It would just highlight the end of Christianity, it would have died like all the other cults, with their leader dying and snuffed out of any more influence on the people.

Christianity proclaims that Christ actually was killed and rose from the dead. What a smack in the mouth to most people. What a crazy thing to say! Why do some Christians  feel the need to have a torture device hanging around their necks? (although the cross we use today resembles little of the early Christian cross which was more like a tau sign). There are strange rituals in Christianity where people drink the blood of the master and the devour body of the master! Cannibals!

These early church Christians where doing crazy things did they all of a sudden forget their reverence for God? Did all of those of early day Jews turn on their 1000 year old ancestors religion and follow a Christ, eating his body, drinking his blood, dying in the water being baptized in his name,  because he had died on a cross and not rose? It seems strange, very strange if Christ had not risen. How on earth can so much change on a lie? Why didn't a lie like this come earlier and confuse more people? Why couldn't more of these lies happen in the past?

There where many cults before Christianity, all with their own promises, own false prophets, there where false Messiahs who gathered a lot of believers, but all these uprisings throughout Jewish or Roman history where wiped out. Christianity is the one that remained out of all of them, and it remained because of its REAL impact it had on the Early Christian followers.

The power the first hand and second hand witness to the Resurection even flows through into modern day as powerfully as it ever did, even though we have more places devoid of Christian knowledge than ever before, we have even more faith in Christ than ever before too. There is a huge amount of reinforcement to my faith in Christ when I logically determined that the Historical Christ is in fact the same as the Christ of Faith. It is still an ongoing research, I probably never will end, but the more I do the stronger the case for Christ becomes.

[thalbergmad]

More people who are interested in researching if Christ died on the cross will come to the conclusion that he actually did die on the cross.

We can all die on a cross, but it is coming back afterwards that is a little more difficult. It is a gigantic jump from accepting one to accepting the other.

If anyone who had witnessed this so called miracle actually wrote down what they had witnessed and that document survived, I would be a little more impressed.

Thanks for your response.

Thal

[maul]

lostinidlewonder, you need to be a little more, *cough*, concise.

[lostinidlewonder]

..If anyone who had witnessed this so called miracle actually wrote down what they had witnessed and that document survived, I would be a little more impressed.

The evidence for that is there. You would have to go about validating the Letters in the New Testament as historical fact, you can certainly research into this. In fact many of the New Testament books are very historically accurate and describe places which have been found by modern day archaeologists.

Also you do not necessarily require someone to say here is direct proof that Christ rose on the cross, you do not even need this perfect evidence when someone is convicted in a court room. People are put away with a lot of other types of evidence, you do not necessarily require a singular sweeping statement to prove something. This would really make building cases for something 2000+ years old quite flimsy. In fact we find thousands of arrows pointing us in a direction of decision, just as we would come to a guilty or innocent verdict in a courtroom weighing all the evidence.

We can all die on a cross, but it is coming back afterwards that is a little more difficult. It is a gigantic jump from accepting one to accepting the other.

We can all die on a cross and other people did, but why was the account of Jesus death on a cross recorded by so many Historians? If we in fact agree that there was a Christ and followers of Christ and that he did die on a cross, then we have a lot of explaining to do as to how the Jewish religious perspectives changed so much without the Resurrection. This is a huge bit of circumstantial evidence that is very hard to explain away without the Resurrection. Nothing in history has remained with such an impact on humanity than the Christ Resurrection, somethings are big for a moment then die, Christianity started out as a small seed and grew into a huge following like no other because of the Resurrection.

lostinidlewonder, you need to be a little more, *cough*, concise.

*cough*

[gyzzzmo]

The bible is indeed based on alot of letters, but my problem with those letters are, that they are written in a time where people had an entirly different perception of events. Everything what they didnt understand had a godly reason. If your fart smelled alot, you probably had a little demon in your ass.
Secondly, few people could write in those days so its very much possible that dozens of people had to tell each other a story before it was actually written down, and you know what happens with stories with this treatment :p
Thirdly, our catholic 'holy' friends in the dark ages had the tendency to change the bible as much as they pleased, as long as they were able to get richer.

[mike_lang]

Thirdly, our catholic 'holy' friends in the dark ages had the tendency to change the bible as much as they pleased, as long as they were able to get richer.

Thank goodness you've told me this - now that I know definitively that scripture has been altered from its original form, I can go about my life free of the tyranny of this religion of yesterday!  Vive ratio humana!

M

[thalbergmad]

People are put away with a lot of other types of evidence, you do not necessarily require a singular sweeping statement to prove something.

Yeh, people have been put away with other types of evidence and later found to be innocent.

Thal