'Jesus was not the messiah'

Originally posted by red g jacks
my reason is mostly that they're not here to give their testimony. i guess if there's a written account from each of these eye witnesses that can somehow be verified as the legitimate testimonies of those who lived in the time of jesus, then i'd consider it as valid as any other eyewitness testimony, which as inimalist rightfully pointed out, isn't actually very concrete as far as evidence goes. jesus could have simply been skillful in the art of deception, for all we know.

but just saying "there were tons of eye witnesses" doesn't really do anything for me. i could say there were tons of eye witnesses who saw allah protect the kabah from an invasive force in the 'year of the elephant,' yet i doubt you'd accept that as a documented factual event.

Exactly. Providing the documentation of those eye witness reports is the job of the guy who originally brought it up. I'm just saying they aren't meaningless.

aren't anymore meaningless than normal eyewitness evidence 😉

Darth Truculent - If you actually think there's no evidence for evolution, we simply can't have this discussion. Your questions of evolution and requests for particular evidence also presuppose misconceptions about the nature of evolution itself, which invalidate the questions. Such as the actively evolving species question, which suggests ignorance of the timescale evolution works on. You're going to have to show me that you have a basic understanding of evolution and what constitutes evidence for it before we continue.

Same with the Big Bang question, which is patently absurd.

Anyway, as to your fulfilled prophecies, postdiction is a lovely thing. Besides, all prophecies are themselves on interpretation and can be fit to the original by applying selective bias. Give me predictive power, as science does, not post-dictive (sic) power, and I will be impressed.

And appealing to Nature as a proof for God only worked until we knew the mechanisms by which the universe exists. We know how planets and galaxies formed, we know how life evolved, we have incomplete but powerfully accurate models of physics, we have mathematically feasible means by which the universe itself came to be, all backed by mountains of evidence. This is not faith, it is fact. Nature is amazing. It is not proof of God.

...

Long pig also addressed me, and I haven't forgotten you bud. I just continue to be unable to reconcile your current posts with your "former" self on KMC. What happened? Because I always have the urge to think you're just trolling for sh*ts and giggles, but if it is you've been very persistent.

Originally posted by inimalist
aren't anymore meaningless than normal eyewitness evidence 😉

sly Hmmm... Sir, are implying that eye witness reports are meaningless?

Originally posted by TacDavey
sly Hmmm... Sir, are implying that eye witness reports are meaningless?

I'm not implying, if you are really interested I can show you the studies to prove it

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not implying, if you are really interested I can show you the studies to prove it

Please do.

If Hell is not a real place since Jesus was only talking symbolically, then what is there to save you from?? So no, Jesus isn't the Messiah, in a real since, that you must believe and that he forgave you for your sins in order to save you from a false place.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If Hell is not a real place since Jesus was only talking symbolically, then what is there to save you from?? So no, Jesus isn't the Messiah, in a real since, that you must believe and that he forgave you for your sins in order to save you from a false place.

Where are you getting that hell isn't real? Where are you getting that you don't need to believe in Jesus?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Where are you getting that you don't need to believe in Jesus?

so good non-believers still go to hell?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If Hell is not a real place since Jesus was only talking symbolically, then what is there to save you from?? So no, Jesus isn't the Messiah, in a real since, that you must believe and that he forgave you for your sins in order to save you from a false place.

Originally posted by inimalist
so good non-believers still go to hell?

Yes. You don't get into heaven on works alone.

you cant fault jesus for not video taping his miracles. That is basically what you are doing. If for the sake of argument lets say every thing the bible says jesus did is true. It would be documented the same way it is now. Its the only way it could have been documented. There weren't 500 independant witnessess, it was 5000. None of which were christian. Ask yourself why the jews of the first century, who not only thought jesus was a liar, but hated the man. Why would they mention in their most holy document that he indeed existed, did miracles, did die on the cross and did rise from the dead. They, along with the roman government conferms the entire gospel. Were they all lying about the same thing, at the same time, independantly against their own interests for no reason? its absurd. History and archeology agree with 90% of the bible. From abraham to jesus is provable. Before that, not so much. I don't know what more you want other than seeing for yourself. Which is the only thing you can't have.

physical evidence, lulz

Originally posted by long pig
Why would they mention in their most holy document that he indeed existed, did miracles, did die on the cross and did rise from the dead. They, along with the roman government conferms the entire gospel.

found this, with a quick google search:

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus--and they're not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schäfer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism's superiority over Christianity. The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus' birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater.

They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell--and that a similar fate awaits his followers. Schäfer contends that these stories betray a remarkable familiarity with the Gospels--especially Matthew and John--and represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives.

He carefully distinguishes between Babylonian and Palestinian sources, arguing that the rabbis' proud and self-confident countermessage to that of the evangelists was possible only in the unique historical setting of Persian Babylonia, in a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom. The same could not be said of Roman and Byzantine Palestine, where the Christians aggressively consolidated their political power and the Jews therefore suffered.

Originally posted by red g jacks
what makes you say he was speaking symbolically?

It should also be noted, if you didn't already know, that there were hundreds of texts floating around and gathered by the Catholic Church , but only certain ones were kept while others were considered false. Why is that? And who gave themselves the authority to make such a decision? Why not the Gnostic versions?

Yes. You don't get into heaven on works alone.

What a sad view that evil people that call themselves believers get a free pass through the Pearly Gates, while good-hearted, others across the world along with little babies all get to spend eternity in Hell. Not even a parent, who is only human, would initiate such a penalty.

Imagine burning little children for all eternity. Is that just??

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Jesus was always speaking in "Stories" to symbolise his messages. He was speaking in parables and when he was talking about Hell and referring to Gehenna, it was a real garbage dump right outside the city. All of the other references to Hell in the original language never meant a place you could go to once you die. It literally meant "death or the grave." The Jews, who wrote down the scriptures, didn't believe in Hell, so why would they write about such a place that they didn't believe in? Hell is a concept taken from other religions that were around at the time, such as the Greeks and Romans along with others. Also, there was a well known historian that lived at the same time and if anyone would have documented that Jesus was the Messiah, it would have been him. Read through the works of Josephus. Don't you think that Jesus being the long and awaited for Messiah would have at least ONE full page about it? At least ONE sentence?

It should also be noted, if you didn't already know, that there were hundreds of texts floating around and gathered by the Catholic Church , but only certain ones were kept while others were considered false. Why is that? And who gave themselves the authority to make such a decision? Why not the Gnostic versions?

Jesus spoke in parables sometimes, yes, but not EVERY thing He said wasn't suppose to be taken literally.

I don't know exactly how they figured out what was canon and what wasn't for the Bible, but there WAS a formula. We learned about it in Spiritual Growth but I didn't pay much attention.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
by Paul the Heathen. Of course Jesus taught that works were important. It's a mans heart that is looked at.

What a sad view that evil people that call themselves believers get a free pass through the Pearly Gates, while good-hearted, others across the world along with little babies all get to spend eternity in Hell. Not even a parent, who is only human, would initiate such a penalty.

Imagine burning little children for all eternity. Is that just??

You are assuming an awful lot that isn't, at all, stated. Before jumping all over someone make sure you have a good idea of their stance.

I never said works were completely unimportant. I said you don't get into heaven on works ALONE. A person can be a real nice guy, but that by itself won't get you into heaven. That being said, if you go around killing children and still believe in God, that won't get you in either.

Also, it is the Catholics that believe a child goes to hell if they die. I am not Catholic, and do not share that ideal. It isn't until someone reaches the age where they can know right from wrong and think for themselves that they are held accountable for their sins.

yea i had a feeling that is what you were referring to but i wasn't sure. i asked because i coincidentally was told the same thing by a christian recently, that gehenna (would have actually been gehinnom in jesus time, gehenna is the greek translation) was a literal waste dump in israel where dead bodies were burned and that all of the verses about hellfire actually used this word and were referring only to a final death, a separation from god. this is honestly preferable to me compared to the more common interpretation of hell, but other christians i've talked to suggest that gehenna was being used as a metaphor for a really nasty place (its also a place where children were apparently sacrificed to various gods) to symbolize a literal hell and a torturous afterlife.

i'd love to say they're wrong but it's hard to contradict that view with verses like these:

Matthew 10:28 (King James Version)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mark 9:43 (King James Version)
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

sort of sounds compatible with the 'separation from god' interpretation, except for the reference to unquenchable fire

I'm back Zigi . . .

Long pig makes a very valid point about video documentation. Many historical records from the Roman Empire have confirmed Jesus's miracles. When a powerful culture like the Roman Empire documents this, it cannot be disproven. In the Old Testament when the Jewish Nation finally left Egypt, God's plagues were documented. Those are historical evidence left behind.

When Jesus was crucified, the heavy velvet in the Temple was split in two and this was documented as well. Paul was known as the Chief Enforcer of slaughtering early Christians - the very first Darth Vader. It was documented again by the Roman Empire that he was converted by God himself.

As to your prophecy question - ever hear of the Four Horsemen? It can be argued that the first three are already here: whispers of war (Afghanistan & Iraq), plagues (Bird Flu & AIDS) and strange weather (ie Global Warming).

As to science's evidence - something cannot be created without being created itself. For example, how do you create a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon can't create itself. It has be carefully assembled by man. So how was the universe created and the galaxies?

Counter argument?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
As to science's evidence - something cannot be created without being created itself. For example, how do you create a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon can't create itself. It has be carefully assembled by man. So how was the universe created and the galaxies?

Counter argument?

lulz, how was the creator created /sigh