Thread: Christmas poll

Gentlemen,

So many fine comments and thoughts have been given in this thread. Most of them have really convinced me that i better keep my positions.

The original question about this poll was about the belief was there ever biblical Jesus or not. Why is it so difficult to understand that there might be not just one, but two possible answers: Yes or no. They both are right: it is a personal question of belief, not knowledge. These two are opposite to each other. If problems with understanding, get back to school and consult your friendly teachers about the difference of these two.
Where comes the rage to convince that something you believe is better and more right than those who see it differently?
Difficult ?

As some of you so wisely told that all evil and bad is from man. I'll agree that this is a 100% fact. I would also like to add, as my personal opinion, that most evil and terrific actions thru the mankind have been when some individuals/folks/nations have started to convince their own religious beliefes (as well as every other One and only Truth or ___ism) to those other fellows, individuals/folks/nations who see the things little differently (or who see no big deal in such things at all).
This has been made by promising some goodies (milk & honey, eternal life, heavenly virgins or just a trash pearls made of glass), later with some not so nice methods (surely you have read your history books, or checked the news), and finally getting rid of those who really do not see the greatness in your beliefs or who just don't these things so important (please consult you history books again).

I might be wrong, but i'm always willing to change my mind, as soon i find some wallbreaking hornblowing pagantorching seadividing bmwdriving evidence, like some of you might to point out things.
And no: even i don't even try to find evidences of truth from the YouTube

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

No Baron. Bless your heart. The distinct difference is that the Apostles were actually there and were the eyewitnesses, so they knew first hand what actually happened and if it was not so then they would have known it and the point is that they would not have willingly died for what they KNEW was a lie. Therefore it only stands to reason that it was true otherwise they would not have willingly died. And if you remember the followers of the David Koresh group of the Branch Davidians where not all necessarily there by their own choosing, nor were they witness to any great miracles like the Apostles were, they were just victims of an insane brain-washing madman, same with the Jonestown Jim Jones group. And like ENUF2 pointed out the Jonestown group was a mass suicide, and some of the Branch Davidian David Koresh group were suicide some murdered by Koresh and some by the government.

I can't believe I'm letting you suck me into this argument.

How do you know that the apostles didn't know it was a lie. Take yourself outside of your blind faith for a moment and consider another point of view. This was an era where having a religious following meant having a source of money, power and possibly an army of soldiers willing to die for their faith. Also consider the apostles were normal men and capable of both good and bad deeds like the rest of us.

If Jesus was the real deal then these apostles were men that new it and where willing to die for him. If Jesus was not the real deal (or didn't even exist and was just a figure head of a bunch of false stories) and the apostles new it, then these apostles where men trying to gain power and eventually the local authorities caught up with them and killed them for their crimes. In that list Enuf posted I noticed none of those men committed suicide, so it is realistically POSSIBLE that none of them were willing to die but instead forced to in order to stop their lies and uprising.

The question of the thread is whether or not a Jesus existed and your proof is that a group of men with something to gain by his existence died because of it.

Your statement is not proof of his existence, it is only proof that he could have existed or that a group of men started a cult and where killed by the local authorities for it (not unlike branch dividian).

Stronger proof of the existence of a man named Jesus would be documentation from witnesses on the opposing side of the argument. If there is documents written by the romans or Jews that corroborates the existence of jesus (that the author actually witnessed). Then you have very strong evidence that the man actually existed. Until you can come up with said text then all you have is your belief (faith) that he existed.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

In that list Enuf posted I noticed none of those men committed suicide

It is said that this one died not for his faith, but for his guilt

Judas Iscariot

Jerusalem, Israel

Suicide: by hanging Matt. 27:5

Originally Posted by Sailor

Gentlemen,

So many fine comments and thoughts have been given in this thread. Most of them have really convinced me that i better keep my positions.

The original question about this poll was about the belief was there ever biblical Jesus or not. Why is it so difficult to understand that there might be not just one, but two possible answers: Yes or no. It is a question of belief, not knowledge. These two are opposite to each other. If problems with understanding, get back to school and ask your teachers about the difference of these two.
Where comes the rage to convince that something you believe is better and more right than those who see it differently?
Difficult ?

As some of you so wisely told that all evil and bad is from man. I'll agree that this is a 100% fact. I would also like to add, as my personal opinion, that most evil and terrific actions thru the mankind have been when some individuals/folks/nations have started to convince their own religious beliefes to those other individuals/folks/nations who see the things little differently (or who see no point at all).
This has been made by promising some goodies (milk & honey, eternal life, heavenly virgins or just a trash pearls made of glass), or with some not so nice methods (surely you have read your history books, or checked the news), and finally getting rid of those who really do not see the greatness in your beliefs or who just don't these things so important (read you history books again).

I might be wrong, but i'm always willing to change my mind, as soon i find some wallbreaking hornblowing pagantorching seadividing bmwdriving evidence, like some of you might to point out things.
And no: even i don't even try to find evidences of truth from the YouTube

Overall, I applaud your post. You have a point of view, and you express it well.

However, as is brought up over and over again, about how religion has been the cause of so many wars, killings, etc, etc. I do not think that the evidence backs that up as religion being the number one cause of conflict and death. But it does make a useful whipping boy in that regard.

Now then, was Hitler a man of religius conviction? Did he wage his war on a religious footing? No. He certainly persecuted others for their religious beliefs. Here's a quote from the man, himself, which sounds rather similar to some arguments put forth in this thread:

Hitler maintained that the "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."^[317]

Stalin, who was pretty staunchly opposed to religion, a man of ideas, not faith, was responsible for killing ~4-10 million people. Religion was not responsible for the things he did.

Mao Zedong is another example. Not driven by religious beliefs, but by political ideology his "Cultural Revolution" made great strides for mankind:

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, perished in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.^[52]

And then there is the scientific, enlightened, and reasonable way of looking at the willful termination of 35 million "clumps of cells".

Yes, obviously, religion is the real "bad guy" here on earth.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It is said that this one died not for his faith, but for his guilt

Judas Iscariot

Jerusalem, Israel

Suicide: by hanging Matt. 27:5

OK, I missed one. perhaps he decided to take himself out before they got to him. It does not change the fact that the proof provided in the statements is not proof of any sort.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

I can't believe I'm letting you suck me into this argument.

How do you know that the apostles didn't know it was a lie. Take yourself outside of your blind faith for a moment and consider another point of view. This was an era where having a religious following meant having a source of money, power and possibly an army of soldiers willing to die for their faith. Also consider the apostles were normal men and capable of both good and bad deeds like the rest of us.

If Jesus was the real deal then these apostles were men that new it and where willing to die for him. If Jesus was not the real deal (or didn't even exist and was just a figure head of a bunch of false stories) and the apostles new it, then these apostles where men trying to gain power and eventually the local authorities caught up with them and killed them for their crimes. In that list Enuf posted I noticed none of those men committed suicide, so it is realistically POSSIBLE that none of them were willing to die but instead forced to in order to stop their lies and uprising.

Hold on a second!

You are a bit confused here. Eventually, the name of the Christian Church has been able to be used for power, money, and influence. But for the first 300 years it was widely persecuted. When Christ appears to his disciples after his ressurection they are in hiding for fear of also being put to death as He was. Was St. Stephen raking in the bucks as he was being stoned for professing his belief in Jesus Christ as the true Messiah? Were the early Christians enjoying power as they were thrown to the lions?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Hold on a second!

You are a bit confused here. Eventually, the name of the Christian Church has been able to be used for power, money, and influence. But for the first 300 years it was widely persecuted. When Christ appears to his disciples after his ressurection they are in hiding for fear of also being put to death as He was. Was St. Stephen raking in the bucks as he was being stoned for professing his belief in Jesus Christ as the true Messiah? Were the early Christians enjoying power as they were thrown to the lions?

I understand Christians were persecuted at the time and were not reaping the benefits that you can gain in todays Christianity. Even if they gained nothing by their uprising it doesn't mean the potential to gain wasn't there. It just means they may have been crappy con men that were unsuccessful in their ploy for power. Their persecution does not make their witness to the account any more or less a reliable account.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

I understand Christians were persecuted at the time and were not reaping the benefits that you can gain in todays Christianity. Even if they gained nothing by their uprising it doesn't mean the potential to gain wasn't there. It just means they may have been crappy con men that were unsuccessful in their ploy for power. Their persecution does not make their witness to the account any more or less a reliable account.

Their leader had just been put to death. They were under threat of imprissonment, or death. But ah yes, the potential of fame and fortune was making it all worthwhile!

Apologies for the sarcasm...

Originally Posted by xman

Incorrect. Your position depends on faith while my position (not a belief) is supported by mountains of solid evidence.

Now please leave me alone. I'm too busy to keep providing you with details which you refuse to either understand or accept.

Mountains of mathematical equations and theoretical conjecture?

Let's take a look at some of the rock-solid evidence given:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time

So...is this back-pedalling? If it does not describe to orgins of the universe, what exactly is it describing? Simply that things are the way they are, because that's the way they are???

The simplest description of the theory would be something like: "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." The word "expanded" should not be taken to mean that matter flies apart -- rather, it refers to the idea that space itself is becoming larger.

And where did that original "hotter than it is now" heat come from?

This is similar to how evolutionary claims showing species change over time somehow may translate into life springing forth out of non-life, but when you try and pin that part down scientificaly speaking, you get left with some hand-waving and mumbling.

Giving an accurate description of BBT in common terms is extremely difficult. Like many modern scientific topics, every such attempt will be necessarily vague and unsatisfying as certain details are emphasized and others swept under the rug. To really understand any such theory, one needs to look at the equations that fully describe the theory, and this can be quite challenging.

Translation: "We can be necesssarily vague, and sweep things under the rug, because we're scientists! Stop asking questions!"

Meanwhile, if something appears to be inconsistant, semingly self-contradictory,or vaguely defined in a a religious text, it is obviously WRONG!

Obviously there was no gain in the face of their persecution, but this persecution could have easily been the end result of a ruse they employed for gains that did not come to fruition.

I am not saying the apostles were definitely con men, and I am not saying that the apostles were definitely persecuted saints. What I am saying is that the statement made does not prove they were either nor does it prove the existence of their leader.