If we are saved by faith alone...

[freeport]

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

http://www.christianforums.com/t7384430-4/#post52437755

Nonetheless, Hitler, the Nazis, and the German people at large were almost largely Christian (Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic).
​

Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. I have already said this to this poster: you have to judge Jesus Christ by what He said and did. There are countless false Christians out there. Yes, God created them both, and for good reason does everything happen -- but the wicked are responsible for their own sins.

Hitler is an anti-christ and a premier example of it.

When people call him "Christian" they are saying 'he is like Christ'. Because that is what to be a real Christian means: to be like Christ.

We are not like Christ because we follow rules, but because we are reborn as New Creatures in the Spirit of Christ. Our old selves have died or will die to the Self of Jesus Christ.

(I do not disagree with the poster who said, however, that we should look to what Jesus said as a model for judging ourselves and others -- if we do so in faith, we do well in that.)

God gives everyone options for what they shall believe: there are false Christians, lying people of all sorts besides, and the few who speak truly -- those led by the truth come to the truth and believe the truth because God puts it in their heart to do so. Those not led by God can not believe the truth because they are of earth and God is of Heaven.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY BROTHER,

The criteria W.W.J.D.--"What Would Jesus Do?"--works quite well--both to judge one's own actions and to judge the actions of others in order to ascertain whether or not they are Christ-like or not. For example, would Jesus bomb an abortion clinic or condone such an act--of course not.

How do you know Jesus wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic? It may sound like an obstinate question, but still.

Whether or not a person--or a people--are Christian or not is based on their claimed identity but must be evaluated their acts using a criteria such as the above. You seem to forget that the Camps were full of many Christian martyrs who spoke God's Word in the midst of the madness. One well-know example is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who rightly declared, before his own death as a martyr, "Only those who cry out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chant."

Nevertheless, the Nazis truly believed they were doing God's will, that Jesus was indeed supporting their actions. Make of that what you will.

i'm sorry--but there is "NO WAY THE BIBLE CAN BE TWISTED ANY WHICH WAY" without the tell-tale mark of a lie being obvious. It's teachings are clear to all who are honestly seeking clarity of direction from God. There is no ambiguity, only TRUTH. The minds of the "twisters" upon which Satan preys are predisposed to evil and use Scripture to "justify" their evil intent and goals. No one is fooled by this charade--except those who are desperate to be so.

I very much disagree.

First you must seek God, then surrender to God and allow Him to take up residence in your heart, and finally just follow directions. So simple a child can do it--in fact, according to our Lord, children do it especially well.

Without questioning your Christianity... why should I believe you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...

You believe Buddha existed?

Assuming you mean Gautama Buddha, yes. I believe there is sufficient, contemporary, verifiable documentation testifying to his existence. The same cannot be said about Jesus.

You are straining to take this very literal and narrow.

It is a lot more then that. The prophets testified of Jesus. Jesus did not ask the cop/soldiers of the time to not have swords. He did not even tell them to quit their jobs. He did not condemn David or Samson or any of the prophets who went to war.

People are not being asked to leave their mind at the door.

Is it good to be an immovable object who has faith God has control over all events? Yes. Jesus slept in the boat while a storm came up. They woke him because it was flooding. He rebuked the storm and it went away.

God is in control and can take control of anyone or anything at anytime.

There isn't any need for weapons when you have God.

Jesus just walked past the angry mob that tried to throw him off the cliff.

Situations are dynamic.

But, you have a lot more control over events then you think. That is what the faith is about. Having faith in God.

If you want to get anywhere in Christianity you have to be wiser then people of earth. Approaching Christianity like some sort of brick wall with rules of "do" and "do not" is a very shallow approach and does not work with it.

In fact those who do follow laws for salvation like that are condemned in Scripture.

Most of Scripture is symbolic. Literal and symbolic. There are symbolic meanings behind the real events of all of the Old Testament.

Just as the everyday world is far deeper in meaning then people realize.

I know what metaphor is. My point is that Jesus' 'turn the other cheek' philosophy seems, to me, a very poor one indeed. Wilfully submitting to those who would dominate you would turn the world into a tyrannical dictatorship, simply because no one would stand up to the enemy.

God is love, you should love everyone.

Treating others as you would have them treat you is pretty basic stuff and God has shown to teachers all through the world of many philosophies.

All sin, therefore, is hypocrisy.

And all hypocrisy is sin.

There is no sin which is not hypocrisy.

My religion is all about not being a hypocrite.

However, that is not some simple matter to deal with that you might sit down with a pen and paper and automatically come up with a list of rules by which everyone should follow. Real life is dynamic and rich. Context changes.

I disagree: Jesus said nothing of context. As I said, he was quite explicit. No ifs, no buts, no 'Love thy enemy, unless he's a Shiite Muslim'.

The point of Christianity... to spread the gospel so people might have salvation?

No... no... first of all "Christianity" is just a word, by it you mean the point of our salvation. But this also implies in context here the point of Jesus coming to earth. As he is the creator, as well, that kind of changes everything.

No, the picture is not nearly so... it is deeper then that.

A lot deeper, lol.

As for "an experience", that is not of the world, but of Heaven. We are messengers of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus spoke of his joy. It is natural to express one's self, one's heart, especially if they have great joy. Or any manner of great emotion. And the way of salvation is that by merely believing that joy is transmitted. So that is the reason. It is a cycle.

Just by being a Christian is one saved. One has no requirements to follow. The Holy Spirit naturally produces deeds and words according to the talents given one by God, which is discernible by their depth of ability to believe.

You say there are no requirements, but there is a glaring one: belief. One is saved by being a Christian, and one is a Christian by believing. Thus, only those who believe are saved.
That's a requirement if ever there was one.

On Buddhism:

I have studied about everything.

It's nice to talk to the man who knows everything.

Buddhism doesn't give anyone traction to go anywhere.

Buddhism is about freeing oneself from desire and suffering, and achieving Nirvana.

I have had a life - and live one - of miracles, dreams, visions... really, talking about buddhism... it just has no traction. There is no where to go with it.

So? It's not supposed to go anywhere .

True Christianity is not some religion or group one joins where one follows rules. It is a spiritual change, a rebirth, a New Creation, one becomes a New Creature.

Yet, the Kingdom of Heaven is hid from the world. (For the time being.)

The gate to the kingdom of heaven is crowded about by a great throng of liars trying to block people from going in. They themselves will not go in. This is like the angel with the flaming sword in all directions who guards the way to the Tree of Life.

It is by design difficult to find and get to the Kingdom of Heaven.

That sounds like a religion to me.

 

[Chesterton]

Nevertheless, the Nazis truly believed they were doing God's will, that Jesus was indeed supporting their actions. Make of that what you will.

Don't want to derail but...cite for that? You do know Jesus was Jewish, right?

 

[2 King]

<edit>

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't want to derail but...cite for that?

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." - Adolf Hitler, Munich, 12 April 1922

"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were"... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions." - Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933

And so on.

You do know Jesus was Jewish, right?

Yes. I'm not saying the Nazis were justified in their belief, only that they believed it.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes. I'm not saying the Nazis were justified in their belief, only that they believed it.

I'm not sure an evil politician's pandering is even support for the idea that any of them actually believed it, but okay.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not sure an evil politician's pandering is even support for the idea that any of them actually believed it, but okay.

Actually, it is: Hitler swayed the German people by pandering to their Christian beliefs. Justified or not, they bought it. Whether Hitler himself was a Christian is debatable, but the German people themselves were Christian (or, at least, thought themselves Christian).

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, it is: Hitler swayed the German people by pandering to their Christian beliefs. Justified or not, they bought it. Whether Hitler himself was a Christian is debatable, but the German people themselves were Christian (or, at least, thought themselves Christian).

I've read Mein Kampf. I think there might have been a mention of Jesus in there, in a simliar way to help demonize Jews, but there's no reliance on any bona fide Christian ideas. From that book I got that Hitler was about 2 parts Nietzsche, 1 part Darwin, with dashes of Wagner and Teutonic mythology.

 

[freeport]

Assuming you mean Gautama Buddha, yes. I believe there is sufficient, contemporary, verifiable documentation testifying to his existence. The same cannot be said about Jesus.

No, our faith in Jesus is based on hard facts:


...

Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians date his lifetime from c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question,[2] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates.
Gautama, also known as &#346;&#257;kyamuni or Shakyamuni ("sage of the Shakyas"), is the key figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to Gautama were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.



...


The primary sources of information regarding Siddh&#257;rtha Gautama's life are the Buddhist texts. The Buddha and his monks spent four months each year discussing and rehearsing his teachings, and after his death his monks set about preserving them. A council was held shortly after his death, and another was held a century later. At these councils the monks attempted to establish and authenticate the extant accounts of the life and teachings of the Buddha following systematic rules. They divided the teachings into distinct but overlapping bodies of material, and assigned specific monks to preserve each one. From then on, the teachings were transmitted orally. From internal evidence it seems clear that the oldest texts crystallized into their current form by the time of the second council or shortly after it. The scriptures were not written down until three or four hundred years after the Buddha's death. By this point, the monks had added or altered some material themselves, in particular magnifying the figure of the Buddha.[4]
The ancient Indians were generally not concerned with chronologies, being far more focused on philosophy.

So, you accept oral testimony from Buddhists, but not written and well preserved testimony from Jews.

Or Romans, for that matter.

The archeological evidence of Jesus and written texts are extensive. As for his followers.

The Jews were and remain meticulous in written records, as were the Romans, but to a lesser degree.

Wiki article on the Historicity of Jesus:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Other notes:

This is all aside the whole testimony of Christians: while there are many false Christians, and many more who have impurity and error... the gospel and New Testament are considered authoritative by the vast majority.

Number of Christians worldwide:

Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.1 billion

Buddhism:

250-500 million


Christians are the vast majority in most free world nations.

In the United States, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, for instance.


Not to bring down the home of Buddhism... but which nations have shown greater output in terms of the arts and sciences: and can it be calculated even the mentioned influences of the Christian religion on these?

(The arts aside, some are taught the sciences are somehow "anti-Christian" - amazingly - however the majority of the sciences have been led by Christians and continue to be.)


So, the weight of evidence is as strong as it gets that Jesus did in fact 'come in the flesh'.

People believe the testimony of Romans on Romans who lived. Greeks on Greeks who lived. Indians on Indians who lived.

Why not Jews on Jews who lived?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, our faith in Jesus is based on hard facts:


...

Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






So, you accept oral testimony from Buddhists, but not written and well preserved testimony from Jews.

Or Romans, for that matter.

Not at all. The fact remains that, while Gautama Buddha has substantial, verifiable, contemporary documentation corroborating his existence, Jesus does not. The New Testament texts were written decades after the alleged events and are riddled with doubts as to their authenticity. Of the scant few texts from the first century CE that mention Jesus (or a similar figure), they are neither contemporary nor verifiable (the excerpt from Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, for instance, is in all probability a retroactive interpolation by fourth century scribes).

The archeological evidence of Jesus and written texts are extensive. As for his followers.

The Jews were and remain meticulous in written records, as were the Romans, but to a lesser degree.

Indeed they were, which makes the absence of records on Jesus even more telling.

Other notes:

This is all aside the whole testimony of Christians: while there are many false Christians, and many more who have impurity and error... the gospel and New Testament are considered authoritative by the vast majority.

Number of Christians worldwide:

Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.1 billion

Buddhism:

250-500 million


Christians are the vast majority in most free world nations.

In the United States, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, for instance.

So? Reality is not dictated by the will of the masses. Once upon a time, people thought the planets orbited the Earth. Then Copernicus came along. Did the planets suddenly shift in their orbit?

Not to bring down the home of Buddhism... but which nations have shown greater output in terms of the arts and sciences: and can it be calculated even the mentioned influences of the Christian religion on these?

(The arts aside, some are taught the sciences are somehow "anti-Christian" - amazingly - however the majority of the sciences have been led by Christians and continue to be.)

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Christianity is the most popular religion, so it stands to reason that the majority of scientists and artists would be Christian. That's why the majority of scientists and artists in, say, India are Indian.

I'm perplexed as to what your point is. Are you saying that, because most people are Christian, Christianity is therefore true?

 

[freeport]

Not at all. The fact remains that, while Gautama Buddha has substantial, verifiable, contemporary documentation corroborating his existence, Jesus does not. The New Testament texts were written decades after the alleged events and are riddled with doubts as to their authenticity. Of the scant few texts from the first century CE that mention Jesus (or a similar figure), they are neither contemporary nor verifiable (the excerpt from Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, for instance, is in all probability a retroactive interpolation by fourth century scribes).

...

I guess you can make whatever claim you wish, if you insist.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, but did mention him.

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(AD 37 &#8211; c. 100)

I would call it obscure and highly unlikely that work was forged or altered, but you can claim anything, I suppose. People do this all the time. (That is by no means any sort of consensus opinion.)

The rise of the Christian movement was well documented early on, which also offers some evidence that the man Jesus did exist. The early Scriptures are very well authenticated, though some of course claim they are forgeries and such.

There were multiple witnesses of Jesus - obviously - who wrote various books of the New Testament.

As for my other evidence, such as the number of Christians or the influence on society: no, I am not saying that 'numbers make right'.

Really, one can not always persuade people reasonably of anything, regardless of the evidence.

One should be persuaded simply by the sheer force of the writing, is my opinion, and that such matter is one of taste.

I guess some people can not tell: this is no ordinary series of books.

I would like to consider some books which I might compare it to outside of Christianity, or even within Christianity: I simply can not in terms of even just raw force of eloquence.

As for mentioning further the advance of Christianity and the prevalence... though men who do not believe might even go so far as to doubt its' authenticity entirely... it simply a matter of the proof that such things are not possible for the flesh to discern and require the Holy Spirit to believe.

It is true, there are those not of God who know. Plenty of them, actually. But, they do not believe.

Taking a stance that Jesus did not even exist at all is an extremely rare and unusual stance to take... doubting parts of his life is understandable for unbelievers, doubting he even existed at all begs the imagination.

(While it is written that the anti-christ 'does not admit Jesus came in the flesh', typically this has been applied to presenting a false Jesus. As the evidence is so completely overwhelming.)

The level of fraud you apparently are claiming here... is astounding, beyond all norms.

And I am not one typically shocked at conspiracy theories: there are few I have not heard of.

(This that you are claiming would involve many, many conspiracies, and as you have no proof of it, it is a theory.)

You are, regardless, as I stated, willing to believe Indians who reported on Buddha, but not Jews who reported on Jesus.

But, it seems if all that would not change your mind, I do not think anything else would either at this juncture, though I have no doubt everyone will believe Jesus existed in short time.

I would suggest consider with reasonableness and fairness the evidence.

That is all we can ask of people, for decency and honesty when weighing evidence.

 

[ephraimanesti]

How do you know Jesus wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic? It may sound like an obstinate question, but still.

MY BROTHER,

The question is beyond obstinate, but to answer succinctly--He Who ordered His disciples to forgive and bless their enemies and then demonstrated on Calvary how this is to be done by praying His Father for forgiveness for those who were torturing Him to death, He Who is God Who is Love, He who spent His life forgiving sins and healing the sick--could not possibly be seen as One who would condone the bombing of Abortion Clinics let alone participate in doing so any more that He could possibly condone or participate in the acts of the Inquisition, the racist excesses of the Crusades, the fratricide of the Catholic vs Protestant strife in Northern Ireland, etc. GOD IS LOVE--PERIOD!

Nevertheless, the Nazis truly believed they were doing God's will, that Jesus was indeed supporting their actions. Make of that what you will.

The Nazis were not Christians, they were pagans. As William J. O'Malley writes in "The Priests of Dachau", "German priests and pastors were exiled to Dachau for preaching love of neighbor, for insisting that Jesus was a Jew, for warning S.S. men that they could not abjure their faith to achieve promotion, for offering requiem Masses even for relatives of Communists." As Hitler himself stated,

"It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity," he confided in 1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood." His countrymen would have to choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." Not that Hitler was especially worried about the eventual choice. "Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again?" he wondered in mock seriousness. "Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished . . . but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves"--just as Polish priests would be forced to do.(from CHRISTIANITY ON TRIAL by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, page 115).

I very much disagree.

Of course you do.

Without questioning your Christianity... why should I believe you?

Were you seeking TRUTH you would not need to ask. It has nothing whatsoever to do with believing me, it is about believing He Who created you. Christians are only His echoes.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[freeport]

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

How do you know Jesus wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic? It may sound like an obstinate question, but still.
​

Common sense? Basic ability to understand people? How do you know Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't? Abe Lincoln? Stalin would have if it earned him money! (He was a terrorist/bank robber, etc before becoming tyrant #73482653534534).

Nevertheless, the Nazis truly believed they were doing God's will, that Jesus was indeed supporting their actions. Make of that what you will.

Because... everything they did and said was different then what Jesus did and said and in absolute conflict with it?

Because... if one actually looks at their religion they see it was a bizarre, anti-God mixture of folklore, occultism and Hitler personality cult?


...

I don't know. There is Godwin's law.

(No coincidence. Get it? God wins. The irony.)

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

People forget that the allies - Russians excluded, though they had Christians, too, Russian was never able to completely rid themselves of the Orthodox Christian - were Christians.

Churchill called Hitler the 'anti-christ' early on.

Pretty easy to make as the anti-christ is depicted as "The Tyrant". Jesus was the exact opposite of that: freedom for all, forgiveness of sins, love of your enemies, sacrificing His life, and so on.

I have to admit: no one lived and spoke as Jesus did. It actually shouldn't be amazing to me that people could doubt he lives and is real: so perfect are his words and deeds.

After all, do they find Buddha incredible, too incredible?

No, of course not.

Muhommad? No.

And so on and so on.

But, Jesus, wow. Some people can't even believe He existed He was so awesome in word and deed.


While I can sympathsize with the poster that he feels he should never "turn the other cheek" and never "love your enemies"... I have to admit, if he did, I would be astounded and consider him a noble man.


We Christians believe in love. What is better.

We believe in faith: what a better way to find rightness? Should we be famous to be right? Or do some great deeds? Maybe spend our lives doing arduous religious tasks? No. Rightness is free.

It flows naturally. You don't have to do anything. It just comes out.

That is grace and awesomeness.


I got to admit: the world is full of people who take vengeance at every slight. They are petty and believe in holding grudges (they don't turn the other cheek). They hate everyone who is different then them (they don't love their enemies).


They believe this world is it and go for the material glory. (Jesus showed that this world was condemned by going to the cross, and showed absolute faith in a better world coming by doing so.)

But what does it all mean? As Ecclesiastes points out: 'everything is meaningless' and 'all is vanity' and 'all achievement is but born of one's envy of their neighbor' -- how true, for the material world! People envy scientists, artists, atheletes, millionares... and the rush out to try and do, do, do. And for what?

Hate to break it to people: it is all worthless if one does not have the Spirit of God in their hearts.


We can tell people we have awesome peace, love, and joy in our hearts: but they don't believe us. Where is the fanfare? 'It rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike' and 'the sun shines on the righteous and unrighteous alike'.

Also note, how we can continually come up with awesome quotes left and right, again and again, from Jesus, from the apostles, from the prophets.

Some verse is always applicable and full of deep wisdom!


Then, there's fluff with little to no substance, which isn't even new in the first place.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...

I guess you can make whatever claim you wish, if you insist.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, but did mention him.

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(AD 37 – c. 100)

I would call it obscure and highly unlikely that work was forged or altered, but you can claim anything, I suppose. People do this all the time. (That is by no means any sort of consensus opinion.)

You call it obscure and highly unlikely, I call it probable. We can both make empty claims, freeport.

That said, there are more than enough arguments supporting my view. Louis Feldman, an expert on Graceo-Roman history and Josephus in particular, conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that the overwhelming majority of scholars question the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum.

The rise of the Christian movement was well documented early on, which also offers some evidence that the man Jesus did exist. The early Scriptures are very well authenticated, though some of course claim they are forgeries and such.

Just as some claim that they are authentic. I base my beliefs on the evidence, on the conclusions drawn by the consensus of experts. I have nothing to gain or lose by concluding that Jesus existed (most people, even atheists, believe he existed), but you have everything to lose: without Jesus, Christianity loses all meaning.

There were multiple witnesses of Jesus - obviously - who wrote various books of the New Testament.

The internal inconsistency of which throws doubt on the accuracy of the texts. The fact that they were written decades, even centuries, after the events, is most puzzling, wouldn't you agree?

As for my other evidence, such as the number of Christians or the influence on society: no, I am not saying that 'numbers make right'.

Then what are you saying?

Really, one can not always persuade people reasonably of anything, regardless of the evidence.

Show me evidence, and I'll believe.

One should be persuaded simply by the sheer force of the writing, is my opinion, and that such matter is one of taste.

So the literary style of a piece of text is what makes it believable, not, oh, I don't know, it's veracity? Tolkein had a fantastic ability to weave a good novel, but I doubt anyone actually believes in Hobbits and Ents and Middle-Earth.

Taking a stance that Jesus did not even exist at all is an extremely rare and unusual stance to take... doubting parts of his life is understandable for unbelievers, doubting he even existed at all begs the imagination.

I have yet to see any evidence supporting his existence, so why should I believe he existed

(While it is written that the anti-christ 'does not admit Jesus came in the flesh', typically this has been applied to presenting a false Jesus. As the evidence is so completely overwhelming.)

And yet, you have not cited any.

The level of fraud you apparently are claiming here... is astounding, beyond all norms.

Hardly: the majority of scholars agree with me. All it takes is a single scholar to interpolate the Testimonium Flavianum, and the deed is done. And then there's the multiple, independant lines of evidence that support such a conjecture for both this text and the New Testament itself.

And I am not one typically shocked at conspiracy theories: there are few I have not heard of.

(This that you are claiming would involve many, many conspiracies, and as you have no proof of it, it is a theory.)

So? Quantum mechanics is 'just a theory'. Heliocentrism is 'just a theory'. Evolution is 'just a theory'.

You are, regardless, as I stated, willing to believe Indians who reported on Buddha, but not Jews who reported on Jesus.

Verify that a Jew reportered on Jesus, and I'll believe.

But, it seems if all that would not change your mind, I do not think anything else would either at this juncture, though I have no doubt everyone will believe Jesus existed in short time.

I would suggest consider with reasonableness and fairness the evidence.

That is all we can ask of people, for decency and honesty when weighing evidence.

And I of you. Honestly, do you really think I haven't considered all the evidence and come to an educated opinion? Are you really so biased to anyone who dares believe something different to your own?

 

[freeport]

<snip>

Verify that a Jew reportered on Jesus, and I'll believe.

Honestly. How does that even begin to fly with anyone? How is that not deceptive to say? You say you believe Buddha existed, and not Jesus, and how is it you believe Buddha existed? I already wrote this: twice. Because of oral and written testimony from Indians.

You know this. Why pretend otherwise?

And you also know Jews testified of Jesus through written - clearly written - testimony. Eyewitnesses of Jesus who walked and talked and lived with Jesus.

So, why play this kind of rhetorical game?

You are holding one standard for other historical figures and another standard for Jesus.

It is not right.

Why is it that you do this? Why a different standard for Jesus, if not because Jesus is so remarkable.

It is quite simple.

You have no problem believing Buddha existed, and all sorts of other historical figures based on less evidence then the evidence for Jesus. This seems unclear to you.

All this tells me is you know Buddha didn't say or do anything very remarkable: therefore you don't find it difficult to believe he existed.

And I of you. Honestly, do you really think I haven't considered all the evidence and come to an educated opinion? Are you really so biased to anyone who dares believe something different to your own?

Well, you yourself say you are not even aware of any written record of testimony from Jews on Jesus even living.

So why should I assume you have examined the evidence when you yourself tell me you have not?


However, it is true and you are right in saying this: I do know you have read the reports of the Jews who testified of Jesus. I already said this to you and say it above.

My impression is that you know full well Jesus exists: but you are denying it because you are not of Jesus.

After all, you show willingly enough your own standard for believing a historical figure existed or not. By that same standard you well know, therefore, that Jesus did come in the flesh and does exist.

There is only one reason why you would deny Jesus came in the flesh: because you find Him too remarkable.

If he did ordinary deeds and spoke ordinary words, you have shown by your own words, you would have no problem accepting He came in the flesh.

...

Do not think I come back here to marvel at such rhetoric. By no means. I keep giving you a chance to be reasonable and fair. What is it to reverse a position which is clearly in error? Don't you want to have an honest debate?

But, not everyone can do this. It is not common for man to do such a thing.

Men are not interested in the truth. They are concerned about their own self which is in direct conflict with the truth. And Jesus IS The Truth.

The only other reason I have come this far in this conversation is because I know these things may aid others reading it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Honestly. How does that even begin to fly with anyone? How is that not deceptive to say? You say you believe Buddha existed, and not Jesus, and how is it you believe Buddha existed? I already wrote this: twice. Because of oral and written testimony from Indians.

You know this. Why pretend otherwise?

I don't. I have repeatedly explained that the evidence for Gautama Buddha and the evidence for Jesus are quantitatively and qualitatively different: Gautama has substantial corroborating evidence from a wide variety of external, verifiable sources; we even have substantial documentation of Gautama's physical characteristics.

Jesus, on the other hand, does not. He has a handful of references, all of which are riddled with scholarly doubt, including even the texts of the New Testament.

And you also know Jews testified of Jesus through written - clearly written - testimony. Eyewitnesses of Jesus who walked and talked and lived with Jesus.

I don't suppose you could cite this verifiable, contemporary documentation?

So, why play this kind of rhetorical game?

Since I am not, the next part of your post is moot. Why are you so interested in disparaging my name and trying to find my secret agenda, instead of actually citing this evidence you claim exists?

It's rather telling when someone spends so much effort discrediting his opponent, rather than his opponent's arguments. I had this treatment when I was Pagan, now I get it when I'm an atheist. I wonder if I'd get it if I were Christian?

All this tells me is you know Buddha didn't say or do anything very remarkable: therefore you don't find it difficult to believe he existed.

Gautama Buddha started a world religion. That's as remarkable as Jesus, wouldn't you say?

Well, you yourself say you are not even aware of any written record of testimony from Jews on Jesus even living.

So why should I assume you have examined the evidence when you yourself tell me you have not?

Because, as far as I'm aware, I've examined every source allegedly supporting the existence of Jesus (limiting myself to verifiable, contemporary documentation; 2[sup]nd[/sup] century writers waxing great about how many eye-witnesses there were hardly counts). This includes those sources allegedly written by Jews.

If you think I've missed one, I once again ask you to cite it.

However, it is true and you are right in saying this: I do know you have read the reports of the Jews who testified of Jesus. I already said this to you and say it above.

My impression is that you know full well Jesus exists: but you are denying it because you are not of Jesus.

And why on Earth would I do that? Why would it matter to me if Jesus existed or not? We've established that I believe Gautama existed, but I see him as no more or less special than Jesus. Even if Jesus did exist, it would only be as a mundane human; why would I wilfully and knowingly deny the existence of a Nazarene Jew?

There is only one reason why you would deny Jesus came in the flesh: because you find Him too remarkable.

If he did ordinary deeds and spoke ordinary words, you have shown by your own words, you would have no problem accepting He came in the flesh.

As far as I'm concerned, he did do ordinary deeds and words:

Do not think I come back here to marvel at such rhetoric. By no means. I keep giving you a chance to be reasonable and fair. What is it to reverse a position which is clearly in error? Don't you want to have an honest debate?

Of course I do. That's why I've been on these forums for the past four years. But we can never have an honest debate if you constantly accuse me of lying, of wilfully denying the truth. What kind of debates is it when one party just states "You know I'm right, you just won't admit it"?

The only other reason I have come this far in this conversation is because I know these things may aid others reading it.

Quite frankly, I don't care why you come. I'm enjoying our discussion, not least because it gives me a chance to revise my knowledge of the historicity of Jesus and the Bible.

 

[freeport]

I don't. I have repeatedly explained that the evidence for Gautama Buddha and the evidence for Jesus are quantitatively and qualitatively different: Gautama has substantial corroborating evidence from a wide variety of external, verifiable sources; we even have substantial documentation of Gautama's physical characteristics.

Jesus, on the other hand, does not. He has a handful of references, all of which are riddled with scholarly doubt, including even the texts of the New Testament.

The New Testament is the primary source for validation of Jesus. There are several books there written by Jews about Jesus from firsthand witness:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and so on.

Then, there are secondary witnesses such as Peter.

You have the whole New Testament.

As for what he looked like, no, people did not bother with that. Jesus taught about not judging by appearances.


Then, there's the very strong secondary testimony: the many testimonies found of the evidence of the first century church Christians.


There really doesn't remain then any reasonable doubt, and I have not read any reasonable scholars debating the existence of Jesus with merit. To say there would be a consensus of any kind would be absurd. That would be a fringe opinion. And there are all sorts of fringe opinions.

No offense.

Consider this: who ever heard of such a thing? Ever? What movements revolve around one person where there never really was one person? Ever?

At best, some could point to fictional characters of the Greeks and Romans or other such religions... but those movements didn't start and grow like Christianity and happened well before things were recorded diligently.

(And even there, there very well may be truth behind the myth.)

But that is not the case with Jesus. His followers grew the church fast, and this was well recorded. It was also during a time where we have strong historical evidence of the group not being there before that time. So it is not some legend from old which had groups working in secret.

To say the New Testament is "riddled with scholarly debate" is far from plausible.


What, would someone say it is a fraud? What a fraud. One that changed the entire face of the planet at that.

That is by no means any consensus opinion: it is completely fringe.

 

[bodhitree]

<nvm!>