View Poll Results: Was there a person now known as Jesus born?
- Voters
- 127. You may not vote on this poll
-
Yes, definitely.
111 87.40% -
No way.
16 12.60%
Results 241 to 250 of 433
Thread: Christmas poll
-
12-22-2009, 04:40 PM #241
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Seraphim For This Useful Post:
Sailor (12-22-2009)
-
12-22-2009, 04:41 PM #242
-
The Following User Says Thank You to hoglahoo For This Useful Post:
Seraphim (12-22-2009)
-
12-22-2009, 04:50 PM #243
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735Also suspicious is that the patent filed for one of the earliest polygraphs was on January 31st 1931. It is thought that this date was chosen to coincide closely, but not so closely as to arose suspicion with the Christmas holidays, which closely coincided with previous pagan holidays.
Gentlemen, I think we are getting closer to unravelling this mystery once and for all!
-
12-22-2009, 05:02 PM #244
-
12-22-2009, 05:03 PM #245
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- S. New Jersey
- Posts
- 1,235
Thanked: 293Aw, look. Your crazy Xmas thread got me so enveloped that I missed my 1000'th post!
-
12-22-2009, 05:04 PM #246
-
12-22-2009, 05:07 PM #247
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735
-
12-22-2009, 05:30 PM #248
The original question was: OK, so do you believe that the person of Jesus being born was a historical fact?
There is enough evidence to prove Jesus being born is a historical fact.
The evidence also shows not 1 but 2 men (Professor Simon Greenleaf and Sir William Ramsey) began as atheists but after longs periods of study to disprove the Gospel Claims they both became Christians. Also these 2 men were separated by over 60 years in their findings.
The evidence also shows That countless people gave their life for the belief that Jesus is God Incarnate. If this were not the case they would not have died!
Faith is the reality of what hoped for, the proof of what is unseen.
As I mentioned before, I said "Yes" in the poll, but mentioned that it didn't matter because that's not what's important in history.
If you want to use courtroom speak, the prosecution rests. And good luck getting a jury to indict based on your "evidence".
EDIT: By the way, how did we wind up as the prosecution? We aren't prosecuting anybody. We are the jury. We require evidence to convict.
When it comes to willful unbelief no amount of evidence will ever influence someone who is hardened to that point.
-
12-22-2009, 06:31 PM #249
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Fayetteville, GA
- Posts
- 227
Thanked: 20Again, I am jumping ahead without reading those post following page 23.
[QUOTE=Oglethorpe;510915]Really, I'm not sure how you can not agree with it...
Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and some more where they just killed each other over God-knows-what (pun intended)...
French Wars of Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taiping Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But that's neither important nor germane to the topic at hand. There were enough wars fought over plenty of stupid stuff throughout history to single out one cause and point fingers. [QUOTE]
The point is that all of these atrocities were committed In the Name of Christianity, not as a part of or sanctioned by any religious authority other than the Pope at the time. True, history is replete with examples of bad being done in the Name of Christianity. That does NOT mean that these acts are Christian acts. If you look at these events you will almost always find some baser reason for them. Example, the Spanish Inquisition was not about getting Spaniards to confess their sins but specifically the Inquisitions were the religious leaders exercising their bigotry toward Jews.
[QUOTE=Oglethorpe;510915]
The Bible is not a reference document. It is not historically accurate in terms of events or chronology (especially dating back past the New Testament). It is merely a book of stories and fables which were designed to be lessons rather than to be accepted as truths. In fact, within Christianity as a whole, there are varying interpretations of the book. Along those lines, these "varying opinions" only contribute to the unreliability of the Bible as a historical document.[QUOTE]
I couldn't disagree more. This the argument that all atheist use. However, there IS indeed evidence that support the Bible. It is one of the few documents that explain much of what happened in the past. It is a reference book that has been used to correlate geological evidence with the history of man. The varying opinions are because skeptics try to take certain events out of context. The flexibility of the Word is what makes it unique as a religious document. No matter what one experiences, if you look to the Bible you can usually find events and passages that relate to your experience and be comforted by the Word.
Example: Catholicism teaches that the creation story is a fable. According to the Vatican, there was no Adam or Eve, no surgical removal of ribs, etc. However, Bible grinders (Christians, not Catholics) take the whole book literally, even down to placing the creation at somewhere around around 11,000 BC (which has been proven false).
So, would those who take the Bible literally say that Catholicism is wrong? Or vice versa?
Additionally, Evolutionist and Darwinist don't take one thing into consideration: Time and Space are inseparable. We now think in terms of "Space/Time". As space expands from the "Big Bang" so does the time it takes for that expansion. If a balloon encompasses space/time, the surface of the balloon represents the physical Universe and the gas inside represents time. As the Universe expands, the amount of time contained in it expands exponentially. The more space there is the more time there is. If we trace the physical Universe backward to the Big Bang, we see that time will compress at an astonishing rate so that a billion years worth of expansion condenses into roughly half a day. Six days of creation plus one day of rest will account for the expansion of approximately 14.7 billion years. In other words, no matter when you start, the Big Bang or today, and move in the direction of the other along the geological time line, you will cover the seven days relative to your time in space, but space will extend for approximately 14.7 billion years in relation to the Universe's time.
I won't take sides in any argument that puts Non-Catholics against Catholics. Your last statement is an attempt at adding discord among different denominations in Christianity.
We are not arrogant in the way you say. Our faith is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testament. The Ten Commandments tell us that there is only one True God and He is a Jealous God (not is the sense of a jealous lover, but rather one who jealously guards his loved ones) and put no other god before him. Jesus also told us that "a house divided cannot stand, you are either with Me or against Me." He also instructed Christians to spread the Word to all corners of the earth. It is out of love that we tell sinners of their sinful ways, not out of hatred like some non-believers profess, but we do it out of love for our fellow man so that he can have salvation and experience the Joy of Christ's love.
Many do not realize that when the Gospels tell us that one of Jesus' names is Councilor that means that on Judgment Day he will be our defense attorney against Satan's claim on our souls. On judgment day Satan will point out every sin that we have ever committed in our lives and Jesus will defend us against those attacks. Jesus will look in the Lamb's Book of Life and if you have put your faith in him, he will find your name listed there and defend you. If you have not put your Faith in Jesus Christ, he will respond to Satan's accusations with, "I knew him not.' and your soul will be claimed by Satan. This is why we Christians evangelize. Unfortunately, as has been stated, we are not all properly trained to extend Salvation to the non-believer and often do not go about it very tactfully.
The difference between an athiest and an agnostic is the athiest says, [There is] "no God." and the agnostic says, "No" to God.
As I said above, many of history's worst moments have been done in the Name of Christianity to justify various prejudices for one or a group of people.
The ideology would NOT permit or sanction such events. That does not mean the perpetrators were Christians or that they were working in the framework of Christianity, they just used Christianity to justify their acts.Last edited by MinniesMate; 12-22-2009 at 06:52 PM.
-
12-22-2009, 06:49 PM #250