CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Srom... I was thinking about this when I posted my comment about you being a troll; Would you commit sexual acts (fellatio) on a random super-hairy guy in a back alley, if your god told you to?
If you're a Christian then yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If you aren't a Christian then he most likely holds little to no significance in your life. Either option is fine.
If you're a Christian then yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If you aren't a Christian then he most likely holds little to no significance in your life. Either option is fine.
In other words, you can be a proponent of filicide, misogyny and slavery, or you can stand in opposition of these things.
I love how you automatically assume that being a Christian requires you to favor such things knowing most people don't. If God did it then I can't really be mad or anything. It was God. He does whatever he wants.
Where did God favor filicide?
God loves all of his creation and the bible tells us that we have to treat others kindly.
Do you unrerstand that the slavery that America experienced was far worse than what really happened back in the day when selling yourself into slavery was the norm? It was the norm. Their morality up held it so I don't see any reason to hate them for it.
Anr yes, you can either believe in Jesus or not. Either of those options are fine.
I don't think by being Christian Jesus just "becomes" the way, truth, and life. Just because Jesus has some importance in your life doesn't mean it is your entire life, completely true, and the only way for you to live. I think it's fine to think of Jesus being a huge part of your life, but he cannot be the only part.
Now, I'm not Christian, but I do think it's worrisome when people take religion to the extremes of making it their entire life. I feel like it goes against what the creators of the religion were trying to do.
It actually involves putting Jesus, or God, before everything in your life. You are tp rely on him to show you the way. Thats why Christians say "Lord willing". They want to do things in accordance to the Lord's will.
Now, I'm not Christian, but I do think it's worrisome when people take religion to the extremes of making it their entire life.
That is the point of religion. A true Christian will place Jesus before everything and do as he advised. A religious person is supposed to make relogion their entire life. The bible tells people this all the time.
Actually many religions teach similar messages, few teach identical messages, but none teach like Christianities message. Christianity is the only religion where a form of salvation does not come from actions done by the individual, but by the divine themselves.
Actually many religions teach similar messages, few teach identical messages, but none teach like Christianities message.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity... They all teach oneness as their ultimate message. They are of course different, based on their different cultures, but the main message is ultimately the same.
Christianity is the only religion where a form of salvation does not come from actions done by the individual, but by the divine themselves.
That's not true, because most religions, including Christianity, already view everyone as divine. People just have to find that wisdom within themselves.
That's not true, because most religions, including Christianity, already view everyone as divine. People just have to find that wisdom within themselves.
Ummmm no. In fact in the Christian Bible, what you just said is one of the original lies of Satan.
Genesis 3:4-5
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Basically, Satan was trying to convince them that they could be like God and be divine and was what God was afraid of them becoming. Satan was trying to get Adam and Eve to repeat his sin. You could argue that Satan was trying to get them to "realize there true from and they were divine". However this is DIRECTLY AGAINST Judeo(spelling?)-Christian doctrine. God cast Satan out of Heaven because God is divine, Satan is not. God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they were not divine and couldn't handle the knowledge of evil.
People just have to find that wisdom within themselves.
Actually this is once again, directly against Christian doctrine. In the Garden of Eden, there were two special trees.
1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
2) the tree of life
The two trees are meant to be taken both literally as the history of the fall of man, but also symbolically. The tree of knowledge of good and evil as the Hebrew of implied meaning of "through experience". The tree of knowledge of god and evil represented those that tried to seek their own path, do it their own way, and as you said "find wisdom within themselves". However the entire Bible is against this and is contrasted by the tree of life. The entire Bible is about trusting God's wisdom not our own. The tree of life is a representation of us trusting God. The metaphor of the tree of life is strewn throughout proverbs, all describing "the tree of life" as trusting God's wisdom, not our own.
So no, thank you for helping me clarify how Christianity is NOT like other religions.
Please read all of this, then decide if you disagree with anything. I'd really appreciate it!
Ummmm no. In fact in the Christian Bible, what you just said is one of the original lies of Satan.
Psalm 82:6 "I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High."
John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Basically, Satan was trying to convince them that they could be like God and be divine and was what God was afraid of them becoming.
He did deceive them. He closed their eyes to their true nature, which was spiritual, and opened their eyes to materialism. That is why they were ashamed of being naked.
You could argue that Satan was trying to get them to "realize there true from and they were divine".
No, just the opposite. They are divine, the serpent closed their eyes to their divinity, and opened them to the illusion that is life.
Luke 18:24-25 "And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, 'How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'"
As is addressed in Luke 17:21, Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us. What that means is that in order to become spiritually aware, or connected as one with God, you must give up materialism. In other words, to realize that you are Holy, because that is what that word means. Holy and whole are words from the same origin. To say that the Holy Spirit is within all of us, is to say that the one spirit IS all of us. We are all divine, because we are all God. Does the Bible not say that God designed Adam and Eve to be one flesh, making all of humanity one organism? He even made Adam from the dust of the earth, giving humanity a direct connection to the earth. This gives the phrase Mother Earth a whole new meaning.
However this is DIRECTLY AGAINST Judeo(spelling?)-Christian doctrine. God cast Satan out of Heaven because God is divine, Satan is not.
I personally believe that hell and Satan are metaphors for our negative internal struggles, but that is probably better discussed another time.
Actually this is once again, directly against Christian doctrine. In the Garden of Eden, there were two special trees.
As I have shown, this is not the case. Keep in mind that I am not trying to disprove Christianity, but show you an alternative interpretation. I personally believe that there are truths in all religions, at least the mainstream ones. I think that the ultimate message of these religions is love and unity. This is what it means to say that "God is love". However, I do believe that these religions were corrupted and taken advantage of by men. The Bible has some fantastic lessons, but there are also verses that just don't quite add up. I think that Satan, hell, and unforgivable sins were added into the Bible to scare people away from leaving Christianity. They inspire people with love and they keep them in with fear. That is politics corrupting a spiritual message.
There are many Gospels and texts that were not included in the Bible, specifically the Gnostic gospels, which teach some fantastic messages. Many scholars actually believe that the original Christianity, the kind that Jesus taught, was Gnosticism. If you were to read these gospels that were not included, you would see that the message of "love" and "unity" is more clear in those than almost anything in the Bible.
I'm not trying to convert you to Christian Gnosticism (I'm not part of any religion), but it is worth a look, because the Gnostic gospels are among the earliest Christian documents that have been found. Earlier than much of New Testament.
The tree of knowledge of god and evil represented those that tried to seek their own path, do it their own way, and as you said "find wisdom within themselves".
See, the thing is, good cannot exist without evil. Good without evil is nothing, just like light without darkness. You cannot know one without the other, but as we know... Darkness is merely the absence of light, and evil is just the absence of good/love. They are not separate, but they appeared that way once the fruit was eaten. Like I said, the consumption of the forbidden fruit was the introduction of illusion. The arrival of materialism. The separation between the Holy spirit and man. Many argue that the serpent was responsible for unlocking free will, but if you come to realize that this world is an illusion, you see that the serpent didn't remove a veil, but added one. To have wisdom is to understand who you truly are.
Job 28:20-21 “From where then does wisdom come?
And where is the place of understanding?
It is hidden from the eyes of all living,
And concealed from the birds of the air."
However the entire Bible is against this and is contrasted by the tree of life. The entire Bible is about trusting God's wisdom not our own.
God's wisdom is our own... We just have to find it. As Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is within you". God is simply our higher Self.
I once read an NDE story where a woman who had died went to heaven and asked Jesus if the Bible was true. He told her that it was, but it needed to be read spiritually not literally. I should also point out that people who have died and come back, report that religion is unnecessary, God is our higher Self, and that our purpose for living is love and unity. I thought that was pretty incredible because I already believed that prior to reading those stories.
The metaphor of the tree of life is strewn throughout proverbs, all describing "the tree of life" as trusting God's wisdom, not our own.
The tree of life is a metaphor for the good decision. The continuation of truth and wisdom. So, yes, in a sense I think you are correct... But that wisdom can be found.
So no, thank you for helping me clarify how Christianity is NOT like other religions.
You have debated with me before, so you should realize that I have not always been a theist. But I had something happen to me that opened my eyes. My entire outlook changed in a single moment. It felt pretty incredible, and in that single moment it felt as if a puzzle put itself together in my head. Later I found a few people who had the exact same experience, and within that single moment they were cured of depression and addiction.
Everything I have told you is worth considering, but you will come to your own conclusions. But with time, if you come to understand all of this, your life will positively change. Our mission in life is to understand who we are, that I believe... And to do that you need to free your mind from the thoughts of materialists, such as modern-day organized religion and atheistic scientists.
Not really. You cherry picked a few verses and then didn't use other verses to back up your philosophy behind using these verse. You just cited numerous examples of the same basic thing. Your argument makes sense in itself, but not in relation to the rest of the Bible as a whole :/
You also have to understand that the Bible was corrupted and became a political tool. A lot of what was added contradicts many much earlier Christian texts, and some of it even contradicts some of the messages within the Bible itself.
I said this: "People just have to find that wisdom within themselves." You disagreed. Here are a few more verses to back up my argument:
Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing;
Therefore get wisdom.
And in all your getting, get understanding."
Proverbs 8:11 "For wisdom is better than rubies,
And all the things one may desire cannot be compared with her."
Proverbs 19:8 "He who gets wisdom loves his own soul;
He who keeps understanding will find good."
Ecclesiastes 1:13 "And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised."
Ecclesiastes 2:13 "Then I saw that wisdom excels folly
Of course wisdom comes from God, but that wisdom is within everyone... They just have to find it.
Luke 17:21 "Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
You must understand that I believe that God is our higher Self, so saying that we can obtain wisdom only through God is the same as saying, we have to obtain the wisdom ourselves, in my opinion.
Keep all of this in mind and reread the Bible. If you are reading it spiritually rather than literally, you will understand.
I do keep this in mind. However one main difference though from other religions. Most religions teach the wisdom is already there, ready to be "enlightened" in some way using your own wisdom from within yourself. For Christianity, wisdom is within, but only after salvation, and the knowledge does not come from within yourself, but from the Holy Spirit, who enters you upon salvation. While it comes from "within" technically, at the same time it actually comes from an external source.
Most religions teach the wisdom is already there, ready to be "enlightened" in some way using your own wisdom from within yourself. For Christianity, wisdom is within, but only after salvation, and the knowledge does not come from within yourself, but from the Holy Spirit, who enters you upon salvation.
Dude, if you want, I can explain my idea of all the Bible terminology for you. I truly believe that people are misinterpreting it. Words vary from culture to culture, and the religions aren't all entirely consistent with each other, but they do have similar enough teachings that we can find the universal truths, so to speak.
While it comes from "within" technically, at the same time it actually comes from an external source.
The source is everywhere, so I can agree with that. But that wisdom is not just given to you. You have to actually search for it, and that requires that you look within. As I pointed out, Jesus said that the "kingdom of God is within you."
the 3 zeitgeists films are so good...they should be showing them to high school students. aside from the religion stuff in Z...those movies are full of need to know/understand info.
fuck you, fuck jesus christ and fuck that over used word "debunked"...let be guess the bible debunked it? and im going to burn in hell for blasphemy (the most unforgivable sin! lol?
so you dont believe thats one hell of a coincidence about the sun being at its lowest point (southern crux/cross) for 3 days RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS and then coming back to life? or did that scientific fact copy the farce of JC?
the 3 zeitgeists films are so good...they should be showing them to high school students. aside from the religion stuff in Z...those movies are full of need to know/understand info.
fuck you, fuck jesus christ and fuck that over used word "debunked"...let be guess the bible debunked it? and im going to burn in hell for blasphemy (the most unforgivable sin! lol?
so you dont believe thats one hell of a coincidence about the sun being at its lowest point (southern crux/cross) for 3 days RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS and then coming back to life? or did that scientific fact copy the farce of JC?
what day then?.....and how do you know exactly what day that whore mary spit him out? is there a copy of his birthcertificate in the the bible or some shit?
what day then?.....and how do you know exactly what day that whore mary spit him out? is there a copy of his birthcertificate in the the bible or some shit?
My point is that Jesus was probably not born on December 25th.
well for some reason your people were lead to believe the 25th is his birthday...tell me what you think of the whole 3 day/died on the cross stuff...and how the sun does the exact thing?
have you ever considered getting a lawyer and sueing all the people (pastor, parents/etc) that helped turn you into a nutjob? id be pissed if i were you
well for some reason your people were lead to believe the 25th is his birthday...tell me what you think of the whole 3 day/died on the cross stuff...and how the sun does the exact thing?
have you ever considered getting a lawyer and sueing all the people (pastor, parents/etc) that helped turn you into a nutjob? id be pissed if i were you
How am I a nutjob? Also there was no 3 kings too that was also made up. There were 3 kings.
try to focus...i know thats hard for a delusional twit such as your self
i will repeat it...
tell me what you think of the whole 3 day/died on the cross stuff...and how the sun does the exact thing?
My point is Jesus wasn't probably born on December 25th and Christmas partially comes from Saturnalia which Catholic Church possibly at that time chose to include as Christmas so pagans would convert to Catholicism......
Also the whole 3 day/died on the cross for the other deities were mostly made up by the movie maker and what is with calling me delusional twit and stuff (for simple disagreement?).
Also the 3 days itself means nothing more than a coincidence.
I can mostly accept that he may have existed, but our knowledge of him and his life comes purely from the Bible and I highly doubt Biblical Veracity.
And, honestly, I consider his role in Christianity to be somewhat nonsensical. I don't see the logic in punishing all humans for the transgression of Adam and Eve. I don't think it is helpful to assume that we were born evil and need "saving" before we are even old enough to be held accountable for our actions. I don't understand why everyone who lived before his time gets arbitrarily screwed out of eternal life. I don't get how his one sacrifice cleans our slate so long as we recognize it. I don't get how you can even call it a sacrifice if he knew he would be coming back.
As far as his moral teachings, if you strip away the specific characteristics of the religion, his philosophy is much like that of the Buddha and other figures before and since, not exactly unique.
I can mostly accept that he may have existed, but our knowledge of him and his life comes purely from the Bible and I highly doubt Biblical Veracity.
There are multiple accounts of Him outside of the Bible.
I don't understand why everyone who lived before his time gets arbitrarily screwed out of eternal life.
Those who were before were saved by faith in the coming Messiah. The Old Testament is littered with prophesies for Him. Refer to Hebrews 11.
I don't get how his one sacrifice cleans our slate so long as we recognize it.
Jesus died for His elect, or His family, those whom He foreknew, or fore-loved. No one else was died for. Those whom He died for necessarily will believe.
I don't get how you can even call it a sacrifice if he knew he would be coming back.
He bore an eternity of Hell on the cross. I'd call that a sacrifice.
There are multiple accounts of Him outside of the Bible.
From the time he was alive? From people who actually met him? All of the accounts I have heard of were from people who weren't even born yet when he died on the cross. All they had to go by was what his followers and enemies believed about him, which was already the exact legends that would fill the NT, and none was from first hand experience.
Jesus died for His elect, or His family, those whom He foreknew, or fore-loved. No one else was died for. Those whom He died for necessarily will believe.
Then there is no point to conversion or indoctrination. People like me have no option, so why do so many try to convince me to join up?
He bore an eternity of Hell on the cross. I'd call that a sacrifice.
If it is all undone three days later, especially if you know it will be, it is no sacrifice. True sacrifice means accepting that what you give up may never be regained.
From the time he was alive? From people who actually met him? All of the accounts I have heard of were from people who weren't even born yet when he died on the cross. All they had to go by was what his followers and enemies believed about him, which was already the exact legends that would fill the NT, and none was from first hand experience.
There are multiple accounts from non-Christian historians, from the Roman empire, from the Jewish faith, etc. We have many apocryphal gospels even.
Then there is no point to conversion or indoctrination. People like me have no option, so why do so many try to convince me to join up?
Namely 3 reasons: (1) God is gracious to the non-elect by the mere fact that they have heard the Gospel message, (2) we don't know who is the elect, (3) people don't understand the doctrine of double predestination. But other than that, there is most certainly a point in conversion! Conversion is not a simple profession of faith; it is a spiritual birth, which is where we get the idea of born again from--Jesus told us of this in John 3.
If it is all undone three days later, especially if you know it will be, it is no sacrifice. True sacrifice means accepting that what you give up may never be regained.
Sacrifice does not mean that at all; of course that is one form of sacrifice, but that is ignorant of the other definitions, similar to how atheists use "faith" to only mean belief without evidence--it is deceitful. Sacrifice can be done in multiple forms. Jesus dying on the cross for an eternity of hell is a sacrifice. How could one disagree with that? Would you be willing to do that?
There are multiple accounts from non-Christian historians, from the Roman empire, from the Jewish faith, etc. We have many apocryphal gospels even.
Excluding the apocryphal gospels (which I believe should be considered alongside canonical Biblical texts) are any of these demonstrable as first hand experience or anything aside from rumor and hearsay?
there is most certainly a point in conversion!
You previously stated that the elect will necessarily believe. If one is predetermined to be in the elect, will they not find that calling no matter what? What if somebody is not in the elect but you attempt to convert them? Is this not a waste of both parties time?
Would you be willing to do that?
If I knew without doubt that I would return to life unscathed and return to being an all-powerful deity, yes. It is a minor inconvenience at worst.
Excluding the apocryphal gospels (which I believe should be considered alongside canonical Biblical texts) are any of these demonstrable as first hand experience or anything aside from rumor and hearsay?
There are historians. They examine primary sources and try to conclude whats going on.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)
This is why Jews claimed Him to be practicing evil, because the things with which He did were miraculous. Why would so many people claim that x person did something, but be against x person, claiming x person to be evil? This was around Judea, and the only explanations were that He was divinely inspired, God Himself, or practicing evil. Your pick.
You previously stated that the elect will necessarily believe. If one is predetermined to be in the elect, will they not find that calling no matter what? What if somebody is not in the elect but you attempt to convert them? Is this not a waste of both parties time?
God predetermines even the evangelism. Ephesians 4:11-12 states, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ," So from this, it seems that evangelists are used to equip the saints. God predetermines them to be sent there and for them to go there, and for the elect to have their hearts opened at the time appointed by God. God doesn't work by simply making someone believe without evangelism. He works by revelation for some (e.g. Paul) and by evangelism for the rest.
If I knew without doubt that I would return to life unscathed and return to being an all-powerful deity, yes. It is a minor inconvenience at worst.
You're looking at this all wrong. Would you be willing to endure an eternity of hell at all? You're looking at this utilitarianistically. Stop that. Look at it deontologically.
There are historians. They examine primary sources and try to conclude whats going on.
Which brings us back full-circle. Aside from Biblical sources, have we access to any of these primary sources. A historian is not above the rigors of authentication. The same goes for the claims of the Jews.
Why would so many people claim that x person did something, but be against x person, claiming x person to be evil?
They believed he was claiming to be God, which was against their ten commandments. Although I would say the more likely explanation is that he was simply a thorn in the side to their leadership, teachings and values. It is likely to me that they spread tales of his "magical actions" as an attempt to scape goat him, much as people made similar claims about their neighbors during the Salem witch trials.
Would you be willing to endure an eternity of hell at all?
First off, why did he endure any time in hell? Was he not without sin?
Second, there is a disconnect between this eternity you speak of and the 3 days usually associated with his death/rebirth schedule.
Third- I will look at it in a utilitarian sense and why should I not? If I'm going to make an important decision, especially if I KNOW without doubt what the end results are, my final results are a very important factor. In more realistic terms, I believe (though it is true I have not been tested) that I would give my life for another. But I don't even need to be tested to KNOW that I would give my life for any being, even an animal, if I was absolutely certain that I would emerge unharmed. And if I was an eternal entity to begin and end with, an eternity in hell is irrelevant.
Which brings us back full-circle. Aside from Biblical sources, have we access to any of these primary sources. A historian is not above the rigors of authentication. The same goes for the claims of the Jews.
The primary source doesn't have to be the Bible... It is filled with people who have seen things. You're presupposing the Bible to be the only source. There were tons of people who were not Christians but witnessed Jesus' miracles.
They believed he was claiming to be God, which was against their ten commandments. Although I would say the more likely explanation is that he was simply a thorn in the side to their leadership, teachings and values. It is likely to me that they spread tales of his "magical actions" as an attempt to scape goat him, much as people made similar claims about their neighbors during the Salem witch trials.
This is a horrible historical analysis... This would only work if there were people on one side of the issue: if the Jews were the only ones teaching that he did miraculous things, then claimed they were from the devil, then we would have reason to suspect something like the Salem witch trials. However, we have Christians saying He did miracles too; they claim Him to be God though. The only logical conclusion one should have is that people perceived Him to be doing miraculous things. You could say that they were magic tricks, or you could say that He was from the devil, or you could say He was from God, or God. But you cannot say that He didn't do seemingly miraculous things.
First off, why did he endure any time in hell? Was he not without sin?
He took our sins upon Him.
Second, there is a disconnect between this eternity you speak of and the 3 days usually associated with his death/rebirth schedule.
Those 3 days were to display that He did in fact actually die.
Third- I will look at it in a utilitarian sense and why should I not? If I'm going to make an important decision, especially if I KNOW without doubt what the end results are, my final results are a very important factor. In more realistic terms, I believe (though it is true I have not been tested) that I would give my life for another. But I don't even need to be tested to KNOW that I would give my life for any being, even an animal, if I was absolutely certain that I would emerge unharmed. And if I was an eternal entity to begin and end with, an eternity in hell is irrelevant.
Okay, let us break this down, then. If heaven is real, and a person gives his life for his wife, but goes to heaven right after, do you think that was a sacrifice? Of course you should! Its obvious it is; no one in their right mind would say it isn't. He sacrificed himself for his wife, and went to heaven after. Likewise, Jesus sacrificed Himself for His wife, the church, and came to life afterwards. For both of these, you say it isn't a sacrifice. However, if anything the latter is a sacrifice, since He endured an eternity of hell for His church. To be consistent, you would have to deny the former. But utilitarianistic and consequentialistic notions fail in both respects. What someone does is the issue, not what the result is. If I give my money to a homeless person, but then get money from a person who rewarded me for my good actions, no one would deny the act was a sacrifice, though the end resulted in more money. Consequentialism denies any sort of integrity: I could be a murder and shoot at someone, but hit a someone who was about to blow up a mall, and consequentialism would say I have done right. There is no moral integrity, say for what ends. Of course that person was intending to do harm! He was no in the right. Your moral compass needs fixing.
I'll give you one thing, your attempts to avoid my concerns and redirect the conversation seem very well-practiced...
The primary source doesn't have to be the Bible... It is filled with people who have seen things.
I think I can just repeat myself here: "have we access to any of these primary sources? A historian is not above the rigors of authentication."
This would only work if there were people on one side of the issue
You asked about the Jews who condemned him. I responded directly.
However, we have Christians saying He did miracles too
Again, extra-biblical sources would nice.
But you cannot say that He didn't do seemingly miraculous things.
I never denied that such stories are told about him. I denied their veracity.
Those 3 days were to display that He did in fact actually die.
By most usages of the word "eternity", it implies far more than three days.
Okay, let us break this down, then. If heaven is real, and a person gives his life for his wife, but goes to heaven right after, do you think that was a sacrifice?
If they had no doubt? Not really, aside from the time spent away from their spouse, which would be irrelevant in eternity.
If I give my money to a homeless person, but then get money from a person who rewarded me for my good actions, no one would deny the act was a sacrifice, though the end resulted in more money.
If you knew full well you would have your money reimbursed, no it isn't a sacrifice.
I could be a murder and shoot at someone, but hit a someone who was about to blow up a mall, and consequentialism would say I have done right.
Since we are discussing intent, accidental consequences are not part of the discussion. Most actions have good and bad repercussions to some extent, but if your intent was primarily immoral, it is an immoral action that just happened to work out in society's favor.
I think I can just repeat myself here: "have we access to any of these primary sources? A historian is not above the rigors of authentication."
Do people 100 years from now have access to the primary sources we have today about WW2? Not all of them at least, because many of them would have died.
I never denied that such stories are told about him. I denied their veracity.
The stories are not what I'm referring to. This is a red herring. I'm talking about what Jesus actually did. Both Jews and Christians, and Romans for that matter, claimed Him to have done miraculous things. The issue is not the story, since they both have differing stories. The issue is whether what He did was real or not real, in the sense of a magician could be doing real magic or it could be an illusion. You have to decide whether what Jesus did was illusion, real black magic, or Godly acts.
By most usages of the word "eternity", it implies far more than three days.
Jesus' hell experience was on the cross, not in the 3 days. He was in paradise during the 3 days.
If you knew full well you would have your money reimbursed, no it isn't a sacrifice.
Knowledge of it is irrelevant.
but if your intent was primarily immoral, it is an immoral action that just happened to work out in society's favor.
This is not consistent with your view of Jesus' sacrifice.
Do people 100 years from now have access to the primary sources we have today about WW2? Not all of them at least, because many of them would have died.
Some form of recording, though not perfect, is better than nothing, Did these historians have direct recordings of the words and perceptions of these people, or did they just talk about them in a generalized sense?
You have to decide whether what Jesus did was illusion, real black magic, or Godly acts.
Which requires reputable and verifiable information. Which is what I keep asking you for, but you keep dodging the issue.
Jesus' hell experience was on the cross, not in the 3 days. He was in paradise during the 3 days.
And that was what, an afternoon? Even less of an eternity.
Knowledge of it is irrelevant.
Knowledge is NEVER irrelevant. Its how we make informed decisions. If you knew you weren't going to ultimately lose a dime, then its still nice for you to give the homeless person money, but you weren't put out by it at all. You know you are being paid later. If you believe that you will be out 5 bucks and give it away anyhow, that is true generosity.
This is not consistent with your view of Jesus' sacrifice.
Incorrect. Jesus' action AND end result were intent, there were no accidents here. I'm not saying what he did was wrong in any way, simply that it isn't a legitimate sacrifice. It wouldn't be an issue if the labeling as such wasn't so crucial to your belief system, but the sacrifice is inseparable from your beliefs.
Some are historians, recording what happened at the time of Jesus.
Yeah, in the same way that we have historians writing books about the civil war.
But its irrelevant if they were from Jesus' actual life time.
Why would that be irrelevant? You'd think there would be some sources from Jesus' actual lifetime claiming that he could perform miracles, if it were true. Isn't it more likely that he was just a wise man?
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Thallus was 52 AD.
“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
Phlegon was 80-140 AD
“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed in the latest treatment by John Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61)
The only information we have regarding Thallus is from Christian sources. We don't know exactly when or if he wrote that. Some say that Thallus wrote some time between 112-109 BC, but then there is the one reference that places him at the death of Christ.
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
Romans often considered earthquakes and solar eclipses to be connected.
“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared
That doesn't say anything about Jesus performing miracles though. Actually, he refers to him as a "wise man", which is what I said.
I personally believe that what Jesus actually taught, and who he actually was, has been corrupted. I think he did have some sort of spiritual connection, but not any more so than Buddha or Krishna.
Such as "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
The bible is accurate. The bible is absolute truth. Within the bible Jesus has already claimed that only through him you can get to the father and this is true. Jesus connects our distant souls back to their creator.
The Bible flies in the face of observed reality on subjects such as cosmology, geology and biology. If the Bible were culled to those sections which were indisputably true you'd probably have less than ten pages. What Jesus claims is not terribly relevant to me since such claims are akin to fables and myths. Both the "distant souls" you speak of, and "their creator" are unsubstantiated speculation at best.
Are you truly going to place the bible on the same plane as myth and fables?
Why not? Half of the stories in it are quite similar to tales you would refer to as "myths and fables", such as the Enuma Elish or the Zoroastrian Avesta scriptures. It features talking snakes and donkeys, not unlike an Aesop's Fable. Basically, if it walks like a fable, squawks like one too...
Everything in the bible is true.
Mark 9:1- And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Unless some of these people still live, and are therefore over 2,000 years old, this is incorrect.
There is no way to disprove it or God.
So? There is no way to disprove MANY scriptures and Gods that you don't believe in. There is no way to prove them either. Without that proof, we look at which view is more in accordance with reality, and that stands most likely. In this case, the divide between observable reality and scripture is too vast to be ignored.
Any other religion, myth, or fable is a creation of Satan and all false idolatry shall be burned to the ground and shall be turned to dust upon the return of Christ. For it is through him that all other stories of other gods are plain and false. He shows his faithful servants the path to eternal life.
Ah Satan. Using a fictional character to discredit other fictional characters. How many unobservable things need to be true for Christianity to be true? Not just God, or Satan, but heaven, hell, souls...if even one is missing, the whole thing either crumbles or needs to be massively reinterpreted. And not one of those things can be demonstrated. And you don't even try. You simply bulldoze through as if it is evident they are true, too indoctrinated to recognize that not a one is.
Hi I am new here. I don't believe in jesus. I have my reasons I will open my self up later and tell why but for know I am still learning about this website.
Define what you mean by "the way, the truth, and the life". It seems to me to be awfully vague, is Jesus the way to heaven? I don't see any reason to think heaven exists. Is Jesus the way to spiritual growth? I think spirituality at it's worse is fantasy, and at it's best a loaded term. Is Jesus the way to good morality? I honestly don't think so, morality is innate. What truth is Jesus? The truth of his existence? apparently some theological historians say so, though I haven't come across the evidence personally, however in any case, I doubt he was a man whom could walk on water and perform miracles. Truth of his religion? I don't see why it would be true. Was jesus the life, as in, is "the life" or I suppose the way one ought to live life, supposed to be in the name of Jesus? I don't see any compelling reason.
Ok. To follow Jesus and Christianity is in no way bad, however I think it is dangerous to make the teachings of the Bible the center of your life.
In ancient times (lets say, the ancient Greeks) there were many myths that were used to explain the world, and to give teachings on how to act. Today, we see them as fictional, but still as life lessons that the Greeks chose to follow. One may look at a Greek myth and find a lesson in it that applies to them today, and then allow it to influence their life.
However, that same person would not call the story that taught the lessons "the truth." Rather, it would be seen as a fable, merely meant to teach the lessons. Everything Jesus taught is not meant to be taken literally. The stories are meant to be read and then applied to your own life, mixed in with all of your current and past experiences. If your entire life is based around the teachings of Jesus, then you cannot create any life for yourself. You lose your individuality and the ability to live your own life. By confining yourself to just the way of Jesus, you lose all the imagination and progress and originality that comes with humanity. It is perfectly all right to follow the teachings of the Bible, as long as you are following them AS WELL as following your own thoughts and reasoning.
So, no, Jesus the not the way, truth, and life, but, if you choose so, it may be a part of all three.
Jesus shouldn't be anybody's ''way'' the truth he portraits is SO sad, and let alone being the life. If anything, murders all over the world have been thanks to him