essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 42,700
- 45,821
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
I just don't see how telling a bigger whopper makes the claim more believable.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[FONT="]Not really, plenty of people think and claim they are a great preacher or prophet of God. Its still keeping yourself on the [FONT="]mortal human level
Its more to do with the persons credibility. If a person like Jesus was telling big whoppers and claiming to be God then you have to question His mental state. We know of people that have done this and they are not the full quid. But they normally display this in all their life. Like with say Mason. He suffered from paranoia as well and was anti social. He had problems in relationships. Or others have strange sex lives or get angry or abuse people in some way.I just don't see how telling a bigger whopper makes the claim more believable.
Its more to do with the persons credibility. If a person like Jesus was telling big whoppers and claiming to be God then you have to question His mental state. We know of people that have done this and they are not the full quid. But they normally display this in all their life. Like with say Mason. He suffered from paranoia as well and was anti social. He had problems in relationships. Or others have strange sex lives or get angry or abuse people in some way.
The personality that will make a person think they are a God is also the personality that will show up in many parts of their lives. Normal rational people dont claim things like that. Imagine if someone walked into a room and said they were God. We know we would either wait for the joke or start calling the mad house if they were serious. Theres no middle ground on this. So Jesus would have to have been a mad man. He was actually executed for this claim so He stuck to it all the way to His death. He would have been deluded and mentally unstable to make such claims.
[FONT="]Why if you allow yourself to have an open mind then you can consider all things. You know that you can include the questions that you should be asking yourself despite your beliefs so that you are not blindly stumbling along. It shows that you are not fixated on one thing and you do not desperately have to hold onto this as dependence for your happiness and well being. I can say this because thats exactly what I do. I have been through enough in life and have lived long enough to be wise as well as smart. My experiences can allow me to take a more confident stand knowing I am in a good position.
[/FONT][FONT="]You believe its mythology. When you say that you are susceptible to the barbaric things of the Old Testament. This shows me you did not or dont understand what salvation is. 1st I am saying they were not barbaric in the sense that mankind did them and there was no divine reason of greater good. 2nd it was God who judged and is worthy. And all knowing to do so and you are seeing this from your limited human views.
Christian knows that Jesus came so that we didn't need to do those things in the Old Testament anymore. The laws and Judgment of the Old Testament was the establishment of the laws for mankind and there was a disconnect so it had to be strong. Jesus then came and said you dont need to do all those things to be saved. It is whats in your heart that counts.
So for you to keep referring back to something that is not what salvation is all about shows you either misunderstood it or you have been deceived about what its all about and have forgotten Gods grace in Jesus.
[FONT="]No my mindset is focused on Jesus. He is the only WAY, TRUTH and [/FONT][FONT="]LIFE[/FONT][FONT="].
[/FONT]Look to Jesus and you see God. Look to Jesus and you see how to live. But most important accept and believe in him in your life and you actually change and become like Him. Not man made ideas and ways. I think its more dangerous with the ways of the world.
Subjective relativism more or less says I am god and have the power.
Whatever I say is right and whatever I want to do is all that is important. When this is mixed with society and made to guide us we are then relying of man made ideas, values and views to be our guiding light. And we know from history and in todays world that humans just cant get it right.
We pervert and corrupt the truth. We convince ourselves something is OK and its not. There are many people who put their faith in this world and looked to the examples of society and found it lacking. Thats why we have an ever increasing amount of people unhappy and depressed and ending their lives in this world. We should be concerned about the many things that are leading the young and many down a garden path to ruin. Like drugs, sexual immorality and most importantly the man made versions of what peace and happiness is. It is growing and more and more are getting into trouble.
[/FONT][FONT="]What you are talking about isn't just about religion. This is a human trait and weakness. when you dont have a clear and solid foundation to stand on and know what is clearly right and wrong then you will be like a ship in a storm without a port. You will be attracted to any light out there in the darkness. It happens in business, money, love and many different things in everyday life. Unfortunately people lie and trick us and we can be to trusting. But that can take experience and learning the hard way sometimes. What do they say once bitten twice shy.
[/FONT]So long as you are open to growing as a person and in touch with yourself and the way you are then you should be OK. Some take longer than other and some dont want to face up to themselves at all. But that is not religion that is just the human experience. The bible tells us to check things out and test to see if it inst a false prophet or words.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT="]Yes and they were all fooled. He was a good salesman just like those who take thousands of peoples money in business scams all over the world. Or just like someone who is deceived into a car or into a deal that puts them in danger. But there are obvious things we can see that were not scriptural and were not from God. That was a cult and even devilish cults can fool people. But the best way to fool someone is to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]Therefore we would have to question the mind of Jesus as He was even more specific. He stated not only was He the Messiah but the one that fulfilled all the prophesies. He was the Son of God and no one could come to God unless through Him. He went around casting out demons and healing people. He was preaching to thousands. Now that would be the mind of a mentally unstable person with some personality problems. And the followers would be along similar lines. [/quote[FONT="]][/FONT]
N[FONT="]ot if it were true, or not if it were mythic[FONT="]al. I lean towards the mythica[FONT="]l side mys[FONT="]elf.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]We are not just talking about religious/Christian scholars but all scholars.
Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed.
[/FONT][FONT="]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
I know [FONT="]this wasn't intentional on your part[FONT="], however you linked a page describing the belief in a historic[FONT="]al [FONT="]J[/FONT]esus[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT], and said[FONT="] virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed.
[FONT="]Well[FONT="] yes, the [FONT="]field of stu[FONT="]dy is to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods". It should go without sayin[FONT="]g that if you want to study Jesus[FONT="]'s life, then you probably accept there was a Jesus.
[FONT="]Don't get [FONT="]me wrong, [FONT="]there's no question that Jesus was a real person is the majority position o[FONT="]f scholars, however [FONT="]it also hasn't really been studie[FONT="]d that much in depth until the fairly re[FONT="]cent past. [FONT="]T[FONT="]he mythicist positi[FONT="]on is [FONT="]certainly[/FONT] growing in credibility and popularity, and when you read their arguments, I personally think you can ma[FONT="]ke a [FONT="]strong case fo[FONT="]r the position.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]If you want I can refer [FONT="]you on to a book or two on the topic. It's alw[FONT="]ays good to hear [FONT="]viewpoints that challenge your own.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]What makes you say that, how do you know that. Are you saying if Jesus was real that those who seen Him and what He done would not have been talked about and then some of that written down. Lets take any event in history and see if there isn't something written down about it that is close to the source. Its just something that happens as a matter of course.
[/FONT]Some of that writing is written in the 1st tense and there is good evidence for it being from some who knew of the events. But if the witnesses happen to not write it but someone else did on their behalf what is the difference. If it is fresh and close to the source. If it comes from the witness and is dictated then it is more of less the same.
][/FONT][/FONT]You dont know that. [FONT="]Some are passing on that from the witnesses. The witnesses didnt keep quite and those who seen it didn't just stop talking. It would have been common knowledge amount the Christians. The disciples of the disciples were with the witnesses most of their life. Living and learning with them. They would have had excellent knowledge to know what was happening.
[/FONT] But its funny how we can believe other historical writings that are less credible or we can accept testimony of witnesses or those who knew witnesses to events decades after they happen like the holocaust trials and think that stands in court. But like I say it comes down to trust. Did something happen along the lines of what was said all was it all fabrication?
[/FONT]There are many ways probably to many to go into detail here. But little things like there being no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD or of Nero's persecution of the Christians in 64AD in the Gospels. This shows they must have been written before then to leave out such a significant piece of prophesy that Jesus spoke about.
[/FONT]The speaking in the 1st tense and the details of small things. Something that would be hard for a forgery such as the intimate details that would have only been known for that time. The fact that some of the contradictions are obvious and someone wanting to forge would ensure things added up and they would put in stuff that would go against the evidence and indicate the opposite. This would be something someone who didn't have anything to hide and was just stating it as it was would write.
[/FONT]archaeology can demonstrate that the places mentioned in the Gospels really existed and that customs, living conditions, topography, household and workplace furniture and tools, roads, coins, buildings and numerous other stage props correspond to how the Gospels describe them. It can show that the names of certain characters in the Gospels are accurate, when we find inscriptional references to them elsewhere. Events and teachings ascribed to Jesus become intelligible and therefore plausible when read against everything we know about life in Palestine in the first third of the first century.[7]
[/FONT]Archaeologist Jonathan L. Reed observes that The many archaeological discoveries relating to people, places, or titles mentioned in Acts do lend credence to its historicity at one level; many of the specific details in Acts are factual.[8] And as Lee Strobel observes:
in trying to determine if a witness is being truthful, journalists and lawyers will test all the elements of his or her testimony that can be tested. If this investigation reveals that the person was wrong in those details, this casts considerable doubt on the veracity of his or her entire story. However, if the minutiae check out, this is some indication not conclusive proof but some evidence that maybe the witness is being reliable in his or her overall account.[9]
Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament - bethinking.org
[FONT="]There are numerous other references that I could mention but hre are some links.
Evidence from archaeology for the reliability of the Bible
Nero Persecutes The Christians, 64 A.D.
This link shows the many figures mentioned in the bible that have historical references. Such as Caiaphas, or 'Joseph, who was called Caiaphas', was reigning high priest during the ministry and death of Jesus.
Tiberius Caesar, emperor of [/FONT][FONT="]Rome[/FONT][FONT="] (Luke 3:1), is named in many inscriptions and on Roman coins. Among other accounts, some of his deeds are described by contemporary historian Velleius (died c. 31 CE).[66]
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT="]Well if Mohammad slit the moon the whole world would have seen that.
[/FONT]But He doesn't seem to do much and all his visions are dreams and he is by himself. But the other aspect is he is just a man and it is acknowledged. He does some suspect things as a man which cannot be justified. I would like to see that video. I doubt it exists. They were all fooled by a salesman who had the gift of the gab. It was easily seen that he was a fake and just like in [/FONT][FONT="]waco[/FONT][FONT="] and Charlie Mason some people are just suckers for believing anything with checking it out properly.
[/FONT][FONT="]No those examples you listed are not credible. They are of man thinking he is God.
[/FONT]There are obvious signs that it was a sham and anyone cane see that. Its like anything, you look a bit closer and you see that the leader has got 3 or 4 women in his bed or he is accumulation large amounts of money. Living like a rock star while preaching. Claims to do miracles but its all a staged act and you can see the props easily. The ones fooled were just that type of person just like anyone who is fooled in love or investments scams. To class the example of Jesus who has lasted 2000 plus years while the others have been exposed is totally wrong.
[/FONT] There is credible evidence for Jesus and there is nothing that shows Him to be a sham. Sure some people will carry on and do some wrong things like try to make out something more than it is. But apart from that the core message and story is still as strong as ever and is being supported still today. But most of all rather than be exposed and shot down in flames through time with broken lives and unnecessary deaths, Jesus has saved lives and changed many for the better.
[/FONT]Like what. Ive just cited a stack. Just about all scholars accept Jesus was real. Now that is pretty strong evidence.
[/FONT]As far as what He claimed and the miracles He did well you have to rely on witness accounts unless we were there which we were not. So this has to be taken on faith. But we do have some indirect evidence from all the people who are willing to testify as witnesses and lay down their lives for those beliefs. __________________
Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator.
Again, why should we take it on faith?
Someone writing something down is not evidence, nor is someone laying down their lives for their beliefs. People of any major religion have laid their lives down for their beliefs, and they can't all be right.
And how do you know science is going to determine there had to be a creator? Do you have some insight into the scientific research that nobody else has access to yet?
[FONT="]
Even Christian scholars largely admit there are no writings from anyone who directly knew or witnessed Jesus. There are no contemporary writings (and we should expect to [FONT="]find some), and [FONT="]there's nothing written down for decades after the pur[FONT="]ported events.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]
But [FONT="]t[FONT="]hat's the thing, we don't have any records from anyone w[FONT="]ho was anywhere close to [FONT="]th[FONT="]e source.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Unfortunately the historical record doesn't agree with you. The[FONT="] books were written at least 40 years afterwards, [FONT="]Luke and Matthew w[FONT="]ere based off the book of Mark (this is known as the synoptic problem within Christianity), and the book of John barely lines up with the other three about anything.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Furthermore the books [FONT="]of Luke and John (at least) were written outside of the li[FONT="]fespan of anyone that could have possibly been alive during the time of Jesus.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]
There are not many documents we have that are less credible tha[FONT="]n the Bible [FONT="]historically[/FONT]. Especially when it comes to thin[FONT="]gs like Jesus.
The best you can say for it[FONT="] is that some places name[FONT="]d[/FONT] in the Bible were actual towns/cities. But [FONT="]that's not really anything to show the bible is credible at all. Fictional stories are set in real places all the time (for example Spiderman lives in New York City, [FONT="]h[FONT="]owever the existence of New York City doesn't lend credibility to the idea that Spiderman is a real person)[/FONT][/FONT].
I[FONT="]t can also provide some insi[FONT="]ght into the lives and customs of people[FONT="] at the time, however the point is[FONT="], there's no evid[FONT="]ence that the [FONT="]more wild or supernatural claims[FONT="] are accurate[FONT="].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT="]
I'm not sure where you're getting your info... most scholars have the position that the book of Mark was written in response to the destruction of the temple. Off the top of my head the destruction of the temple is talked about in Mark 13 (although it is written as a "prediction").
[FONT="]
Some of the claims made in the gospels are ridiculously wrong, and would never have been committed by a 1st century Jew living in ancient Israel. Examples are mistakes in cultural rituals, mistaken geography, and more. The gospels are not as airtight as you may think they are.
[FONT="]
This goes back to my Spiderman and New York city example. Just because the story was set in a real place, and real names and whatnot may have been inserted into the story, that doesn't mean the story is credible.
Again, there's also a lot of glaring mistakes made in that area as well on that note.
[FONT="]
[FONT="]Again, there's no doubt that the biblical authors us[FONT="]ed real places and real names in their narratives. That doesn't mean their stories are real though[FONT="].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]
If a great supernatural [FONT="]darkness fell upon the world, which wa[FONT="]s met with massive earthquakes, and the zombie invasion of Jerusalem when Jesus die[FONT="]d [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT](as is described in the go[FONT="]spels), people would have noticed that too.
[FONT="]But for [FONT="]some reason, the Roman[FONT="] records from the time show nobody[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]seemed to notice[FONT="].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]
I'll have to look it up, it's been a couple years since I have seen it. It was a documentary that was ma[FONT="]de when Jonestown was still going on before the disaster. They interviewed some people who lived[FONT="] there and they made claims that Jim Jones created food out of thin air to feed every[FONT="]one, etc.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]
[FONT="]How are the[FONT="] stories about Jesus as contained in t[FONT="]he gospels any more credible? We actually have confirmed first hand accounts[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] for [FONT="]J[/FONT]im Jones, [FONT="]we don't have that for Jesus.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]
How do you know the wh[FONT="]ole Jesus thing wasn't based on a sham either? Just because a lie has been told for a long [FONT="]time, do[FONT="]esn't [FONT="]somehow make th[FONT="]e lie true.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]
Have you ever read any counter-[FONT="]arguments to that viewpoint?
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]
That's actually an appeal to authority, not evidence in and of itself.
[FONT="][/FONT]As far as what He claimed and the miracles He did well you have to rely on witness accounts unless we were there which we were not. So this has to be taken on faith. But we do have some indirect evidence from all the people who are willing to testify as witnesses and lay down their lives for those beliefs. __________________
Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator.
Again, why should we take it on faith?
Someone writing something down is not evidence, nor is someone laying down their lives for their beliefs. People of any major religion have laid their lives down for their beliefs, and they can't all be right.
And how do you know science is going to determine there had to be a creator? Do you have some insight into the scientific research that nobody else has access to yet?
Another major mistake that is rather important to the bible narrative is the account of the Roman census. There's no reason to believe Romans required anyone to travel to their hometown for the census, quite the opposite...it would be extraordinarily difficult to get everyone to do this...and serves no real practical purposes.
Jesus is spiritually present now in the heart of the believer. The proof of the truth of his teaching is found in sharing his faith in God. The imperfection of the writings about Jesus don't interfere with living the religion of Jesus.
The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one Luke was referring to.
From the Acts of Augustus No. 8
"8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?