9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Yes and its available to all.

Baptism is not necessary, that is just a trick to convert people.

originally posted by: Tangerine

I, too, have no problem with people who say, "I believe....". It's those who make claims of fact they can not support with testable evidence who are the problem. The point at which someone says, "I believe..." a dialogue can begin. But a dialogue is impossible with a person incapable of reasoning critically and distinguishing between belief and fact.

I feel similar. I have no trouble with religious "belief" per se, only the notion put forward by some that it is fact, or the idea that it is politically incorrect to challenge it.

I notice the people that go around selling religion usually get shunned by their fellow jesus/god followers, often because people already have their own conflicting beliefs/denomination. Yet I never shun them and like to discuss their beliefs (as long as it is acknowledged as belief). I really do want to understand more deeply, why they choose to believe such things. I have managed to even speak to leaders and high up people in religious cults, taken challenges to study ideology etc. A fascinating subject.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I feel similar. I have no trouble with religious "belief" per se, only the notion put forward by some that it is fact, or the idea that it is politically incorrect to challenge it.

I question this claim. You are arguing against religion with two people who do not regard religious claims as factual and who challenge them enthusiastically in other threads — and even, indeed, on this one.

originally posted by: Astyanax

Why are you arguing so fervently against religion with two people who are not in the least religious? You may choose to doubt Lucid Lunacy's unbelief, but I have met him many times on these threads and I am perfectly satisfied that he is as Godless as I. Or you, for that matter — but there seems to be a difference, doesn't there, between you and the two of us?

Do I need to explain the irrelevant fallacy here? I have not doubted your "godlessness". If Lucid claimed it irrelevant to the point, I would agree. I am quite happy to be wrong (happens often) at which point I am likely to apologise. Not sure what it has to do with the price of fish, where you are concerned re the topic...

I'll tell you what I think that difference is. You have not yet outgrown the prison of faith. You have declared yourself an unbeliever, but the emotions generated by faith still have you in thrall. Your anger against religion is evident, and anger is just another way of manifesting fear. You're afraid of religion.

Lol. The last bastion of those without any genuine argument?

Religious belief is the apparent cause of many evil and ugly things. More accurately, it is made the excuse for many evil and ugly human acts. That has absolutely nothing to do with my thesis; you may say the same for any belief system — political and cultural beliefs are made use of in just the same way. The point is, in spite of all that, Christianity brought forth and propagated an idea that has genuinely changed human relationships and institutions for the better. You're not seeing that. How can you? You're too busy bashing religion.

Faithheads — yes, a pejorative term — are idiots or worse. We all know that. But the neurotically religious are not religion itself. Belief systems differ but nearly all of them have some ethical merit in them somewhere. There is also a great deal in them that is deleterious to human welfare, but to blame religion itself for the insanely evil behaviour of Mother Theresa, the superstition of born-again Americans and the selfishness of churchgoing right-wing politicians is to fail to see the wood for the trees.

With respect. I'm not seeing it because it isn't there. I don't feel I'm missing your points, as much as disagreeing. The notion that a primitive belief system is necessary for people to be nice to one another is not only ludicrous, but has ample evidence to the contrary. It is very doubtful the free will that Christians spout exists either, in the truest sense. We are not discussing "other" systems, we discussing one in particular.

You are still offering a diversion from the points raised. It amounts to irrelevant hand waiving. Neither are you aware of what beauty I might have found in certain philosophies (including Christianity), or the efforts that have gone into such. Like many atheists, I am not really an atheist in the truest sense (despite appearances). I'm simply not that knowledgable, though I can usually smell bs when it is there.

You are simply skimming over any pertinent points raised. Theresa was a Christian. Born again Christians are Christians. Church going right wing politicians are also Christians. Luther did exert quite an influence on the German populace. Religion does correlate with social dysfunction (for reasons little understood, as of yet).

If you wish to overlook the more obvious, that it always has been used by those of unscrupulous motives (from it's inception as state religion of Rome), that it does exist with social dysfunction (with ample examples of where it's observance causes social dysfunction), that's up to you.

I find your opinions constitute a rather a fanciful view and your argument (which seem based solely on a personal preference) a rather romantic one that seems to overlook a lot of the reality, reminiscent of Don Quixote and his windmills. Tilt away good sir.....Though keep in mind that when you do have a genuine argument, based on more than your own belief and preferences, I will listen, perhaps even adjust my own position if necessary.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I feel similar. I have no trouble with religious "belief" per se, only the notion put forward by some that it is fact, or the idea that it is politically incorrect to challenge it.

I question this claim. You are arguing against religion with two people who do not regard religious claims as factual and who challenge them enthusiastically in other threads — and even, indeed, on this one.

Challenge away.

I am arguing against two claims. The personal position of those making the claims themselves (believer/atheist), somewhat irrelevant. If you take exception to anything I might have remarked to Lucid, get over it. I'll happily accept that it is irelevant re the points under discussion, where appropriate.

1. jesus existed as a historical person.

2. Christianity was historically and still is, a wonderful, possibly even necessary guiding force/institution where it applies to western civilisation. "It works" I think, would be the relevant quote.

I see no good evidence in favour of the first point. There have neither been genuine rebuttals as to why what has been offered doesn't constitute such. I have provided many factual reasons to overturn the second one (unopposed it seems by anything other than a personal opinion).

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Yes and its available to all.

Baptism is not necessary, that is just a trick to convert people.

Man can baptize with water, however Only God can Convert via Baptism with Fire. Praise The lord

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
originally posted by: Tangerine

What I have a problem with is claims of fact unsupported by testable evidence.

You have a problem with asking people to provide evidence of something which has been documented for thousands of years.

Why don't you just say you don't know what it is and be done with it? That I could respect.

Seriously, if I was so unacquainted then I would not have advised you to pray to it. I gave you the answer you needed and it's up to you whether or not you take it into consideration. If you cannot do that then questioning the existence of the Holy Spirit or my connection with it might sound rather daft.

Funny, when asked to do so, you can't seem to cite that testable evidence. Claims several thousands of years old are still just claims.

You didn't give me the answer I requested. Instead, you told me to practice your religion. No thanks. If you asked someone how gravity worked and they told you to jump off a bridge, you would question their motives. I question yours.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The notion that a primitive belief system is necessary for people to be nice to one another is not only ludicrous, but has ample evidence to the contrary.

But that is not what I was saying.

I was talking solely and specifically about the revolutionary ethical proposition that it is better to treat other members of your own species as if they were genetically identical to yourself, or at least to your very close kin. In Christian shorthand, 'love thy neighbour as thyself.'

This is something special; something that had not really existed in the world until that time. Oh, there are ethical concepts that come close, but they all tend to be more or less pantheistic, and are therefore not very personal and specific; they lack impact or, like Buddhism, only really work for a special sort of person. The Christian ethical proposition is simple, universally applicable and compelling. And over two millennia it has permeated Western civilization, its institutions, its art, its social relations, influencing the history of humankind...

But I am repeating myself. Let it be. I am not so fond enough of Christianity to let myself be co-opted in its defence.

OK OK ..


With all this Debate People Seeking if there is a Historical Jesus that existed !


The name Jesus was a Known Name from Many from Christ Time
as Barabbas First Name was just that Yeshua


The Only Real Evidence from a Different Source IS......


There was a Man that claimed to be a Messiah and People Gathered in Large Groups to Listen to his Words in the Same Location of where Jesus the Christ would of Been Claudius and His Advisers have mention this in a Discussion that had of a Uprising a Disturbance cause by One man 20 + years ago. in Claudius Time..

Suetonius on Christians
en.wikipedia.org...

But was NEVER NAMED but as only Chrestus Hence that this Could of been Anyone ..

as Christ is Not Jesus last name it is his claimed Title ...

Another look...

Census of Quirinius
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

a reply to: Gianfar

The ancient texts of the bible also say that there are two sources of light in the sky, the sun and the moon.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gianfar

The ancient texts of the bible also say that there are two sources of light in the sky, the sun and the moon.

That's largely a semantical response. Please address why the holy scriptures state emphatically that the universe is divided into 'municipalities' and 'powers'. For whom are these municipalities and powers divided?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

Does that mean you place no credence in ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?






Are your saying that you place no credence in these ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?

Are you saying that you don't attribute any veracity in the ancient texts or Abrahamic religions that espouse the
these scripts?
How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

Are you saying that you place no veracity in ancient religious texts or the Abraham religions espousing them?

Here's a bigger lie about Jesus. He was not Jewish.

The word Jew or any reference to Jesus being king of jews was nowhere in the bible until translations in the eighteenth century. Many believe that Jewish elite had the translation edited to tie the Jewish people to the Christian messiah. But believe what you will. The truth is that only after eighteenth century translations did Jesus being Jewish manifest.

And if you think about it, the word Jew was originally meant to describe people from Judea (all people from judea). And we all know Jesus was from

I didn't learn this fact from this link but it lays out the idea decently.

AAC

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The notion that a primitive belief system is necessary for people to be nice to one another is not only ludicrous, but has ample evidence to the contrary.

But that is not what I was saying.

I was talking solely and specifically about the revolutionary ethical proposition that it is better to treat other members of your own species as if they were genetically identical to yourself, or at least to your very close kin. In Christian shorthand, 'love thy neighbour as thyself.'

This is something special; something that had not really existed in the world until that time. Oh, there are ethical concepts that come close, but they all tend to be more or less pantheistic, and are therefore not very personal and specific; they lack impact or, like Buddhism, only really work for a special sort of person. The Christian ethical proposition is simple, universally applicable and compelling. And over two millennia it has permeated Western civilization, its institutions, its art, its social relations, influencing the history of humankind...

But I am repeating myself. Let it be. I am not so fond enough of Christianity to let myself be co-opted in its defence.

The statement, 'love thy neighbor as thyself ', is not merely the command and proverb of Jesus but also confers the duality of relationships preconditioned by personality, the alter-ego. In effect, people do love others as they love themselves. The state of one's Self Esteem is the foundation upon which relationships are defined.