o rly? wonder what master g and apollon would say about that lol [youtube]psGLXqW1kUs[/youtube] "nothing predates the christians" lol
hehehe.... well i believe Jesus looked like what a middle easterner would look like. BUT i don't care about his skin colour. he could be black, white or anything in-between for all i care and if it wasn't so; my love for Jesus would be circumstantial (ex. i love Jesus only if he is a certain way) which isnt real love at all. i dont remember the bible speaking of Jesus' colour though and ive read the entire bible so if it is true, please let me know so i take a look at it. what i have seen though is hope that helps
so a few interpretations floating around out there and somewhat unclear. also, did you get that description from "describes his features as he appears in his heavenly form, as seen in a vision by John the Divine"
its all about doing your own research, 2nd hand information is not always reliable regardless of the subject.
An obvious known fact. It is not about second hand information. as for the bible being a true source, left to interpretation by the reader. Knoc
one thing i will mention is when God sent moses to pharoh; moses performed some miracles, these miracles were 100% replicated by the magicians or whatever they were called. so were did the magicians get their power, according the bible, it is a counterfeit power from the god of this earth. that's my Christian belief.
no i do believe to a certain extent that the bible is true, but magical stuff like angels and hell are a fabrication.
hehe, i just heard on the radio they got an Atheist tree,,, anyway... urmm eww, i just heard on the radio that you get put into prison for talking about Christianity in China :(
^ hmm.. ok fine.. ill stick to my words before and say ill respect your beliefs.. but i cant say i trust the Bible so much.. its not that i dont trust Christianity, its the liability of the source the Bible was taken from that i dont trust.. its obviously been under countless hearsay scrutiny if you understand what im saying..
im not sure how to quote so forgive me if its screwed up. you keep mentioning that we should believe what is written in the bible as facts because a great number of people believed it and/or witnessed it. Again, i must stress that these are not proofs. And i'll quote one ofm y friends here: Nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie. Just because they stand by it and die for it doesn't means it the truth. Are these disciples' wtinesses all that credible? Humans have never been free from the fallacy of deception. Let me give you an example of deception. If i had a deck of cards, yo0u pick one, and i successfully guess it, does that make me a psychic? The answer would be a definite yes if i had lived in earlier times and most likely would have been burned at the stake for witchcraft. In modern times, we would say that is merely a magic trick. What happens if people start writing about the phenomenon? it doesnt make it any more true. All of the arguments for god thus far has been based on faith, which is not a piece of evidence at all. It is faith that compelled these people to sacrifice themselves, and faith again, that keeps the churches running today. None of the arguments you have given me are actually evidences, with the exception of this one I don't know enough about the bible to argue this point and i have too many exams to go researching for it until the end of december. However i can tell you now that having many different people write about the same thing is not impossible, especially since they are not from the same generational span. People can capable of passing on stories to the younger generation. THese people then pass on their beliefs to yet another generation and so on. This is what sustains present day christianity. THe majority of christians these days were born to a christian family. A child's mind is the most suspectible to external influence. As for the people who join later in their life, these people are usually people who are going thru troubles in their lives. Everyone wants to feel secure, and so they believe. this has been mentioned before by other people, but it is my personal belief that people wanted to believe in religion ibecause they fear death. These new joiners may have just wanted something to fall back on to feel happy. alright, i just want to give my thanks to appolo for continuing in this debate with me. I do find this an interesting topic and enjoy having intellectual arguments about it. Actually, this may surprise you, but i am not a pure atheist. I am closer to an agnostic than an atheist because I believe that there are always possibilities that something else can be true. However, i am not going to waste my time worshipping something without sufficient evidence.
John the Divine!! never heard of that, ill take a look on the net. nope, dont know, is he the John of the bible?, can you find this description from him on the net and give us a link plz. just heard on radio that scientist have found some old fish and decided it proves the evolution of the eye...... here we go again.
yeah, well they are communist so technically they dont support any state religion... although im pretty sure they go easy on buddhism i think all religious items are also being banned from the 08 beijing olympics.
First of all, you're welcome, frostshards -- but i shouldn't be the only one to be thanked. since, there are many other Christians that contributed to this discussion. Now, back to the topic -- I do not think you understand my reasoning here. Let me break it down for you even more – The early Christian’s belief in Christ was based on facts seen with their own eyes. It was not like they believed in some doctrine or theory prophesied by an elderly or a prophet – no, no, no. They believe in Christ from their first-hand experience of seeing him (Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection). Now, one can debate whether what they saw was true or false. So, the reasoning of the multitudes comes into play. Since, would it be more logical if thousands of people died defending a lie/deception (and bear in mind - they would not be punished for breaking the lie, since if it was a lie - there would not be a God to administer the punishment and their peers were being persecuted so much that no direct-authoritative whole was able to enforce a punishment, as well) or would it be more logical to say they were telling the truth? Do you understand my logic here? That is why; the early Christians’ understanding of the role of Christ in their lives was concrete and stationary. They were defend truthful events and circumstances; therefore it had very little to do with faith. It would be like, if someone asks you, what did you eat for dinner last night? Your answer would not based on belief, but a witnessed-truth. To perform miracles is not surprising. If doctors of today were sent back a thousand years ago – they would be consider witches, wizard, holy men and women for their ability to predict and cure the sick. However, the only thing that makes Christ Jesus so different from the all of the other “miracle” performers and wise gurus – was His resurrection. No other religion supports and has eye-witness accounts of a resurrection. The only two proclaimed past-Gods (whom are not worship in today’s society) given the hints to be similar to Christ would be Mithra and Apollonius. Both has been rebuked because their inconsistencies with their written documents on their religion, historically and religiously speaking. Also because, both were written hundreds of years after their “Gods” had died, relived and gone away. Therefore, questioning their plausible first-handed accounts of the prophesied miracles and resurrection performed – which further leads to the failure of both religions and the few to zero surviving believers of their faith. I would agree that it is plausible that the other “Masters” could exist as well. And I am also not denying they could have perform miracles or given sage-advice. However, none of this “Masters” could defeat death (therefore, they were not God; but merely man). Unless you consider, never dying as “defeating” death – but we all know there is a big difference between not dying and to die, then becoming alive (after a significant amount of time, ie. three days) again. Also, there is evidence to prove the existence of Christ. The Bible is not the only source to proclaim the existence of Jesus Christ (although, it should be the primary source for any reference and teaching from Jesus Christ). And much of these sources were written in the same time-line as the first Christians and the life of Christ Jesus. Some secular authors would be: Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117) was a Roman historian, Thallus (circa AD 52) was Eastern Mediterranean historian, Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, and Lucian (circa 120-after 180) a Greek writer and rhetorician. source: http://www.carm.org/evidence/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
