The Miracles of Jesus

,    »  -   395 Comments
165
5.94
12345678910
Ratings: 5.94/10 from 17 users.

Storyline

The Miracles of JesusWhat would first-century Jews have thought when they saw a man heal cripples and still storms? The Miracles of Jesus explains the cultural relevance, and the deeper Biblical meaning, behind Jesus's works.

It's a captivating story - Jesus interrupting a funeral cortège to bring the deceased back to life. It isn't hard to picture the scene: the distraught mother weeping and wailing, supported by friends on either side; the confusion and unease as this stranger Jesus approaches the coffin, telling the mother not to cry; the shock and sheer incredulity of the crowd as the boy sits up in his coffin and talks; the boy himself, blinking in the daylight.

But what are we to make of it? Maybe Jesus really did bring the boy back from the dead. Or perhaps the boy wasn't dead in the first place, merely in a coma. There will never be an answer to satisfy everyone. To those people who saw it happen there was no doubt - Jesus had brought the widow's son back to life. A pretty astonishing thing to witness. No wonder they were 'filled with awe'.

But the triumph of life over death was not what really got the crowd going. If you look closely at the biblical account you find that this miracle reminded them of another miracle that took place a thousand years earlier, performed by one of the holiest men in Jewish history - the prophet Elijah. In fact, it more than reminded them. The symmetry was unmistakable.

More great documentaries

395 Comments / User Reviews

  1. anzoni

    The explanation of the miracle of Jesus waking on the water... This is a symbol. Only GOD can walk over the water. Thats the meaning for the people of all the times an cultures, and is in the subconscient of the every man. Thats the teologogical meaning. Is a message for all of as. Because of that I think could terrorize. The gospels have many levels of understanding and levels of meaning. There are the facts, but there are a symbol layer, and message layer, and a political layer, moral layer, of course a poetic layer, the miracles in some way are "performances", an artistic layer of course, an historic layer, an economic layer....

  2. eireannach666

    @anzoni" The explanation of the miracle of Jesus waking on the water… This is a symbol. Only GOD can walk over the water."and There are the facts, etc"

    1. Umm,miracle?Its not a miracle if you know where the stepping stones are.
    2. What facts are you refering to ?There are facts? Please enlighten me , since I seem to have missed something. Because as far as I can see there are no facts to support this .

    Wait are you speaking of the "facts" added hundreds of years later by the church?
    No,no,you must be talking about just believing everything your are told and have read.If a priest says so,then it must be true.

    If he asks you to drink the wine, dont.

  3. pheldespat

    What Jesus allegedly did and say was written decades after his death by non-eye-witnesses. There were many different accounts of Jesus' deeds, some contradictory. Finally, only 4 were chosen as canon. Many of Jesus' deeds were also attributed to other gods and heroes before.

    Was there a man called Jesus at that time, in that place? Surely, Jesus was a very common name. Did any of these Jesuses perform miracles? No. The history of Jesus we know today was fabricated.

  4. Achems Razor

    @ anzoni:

    Gods son (Sun), walking on water, the suns rays walk on the water, re: sunset.

    Anthropomorphized, All the religion means is the worship of the (Sun), Gods son, (Sun)!!
    Sun worship, Period!

  5. Christ Saves

    Actually the evidence for Christ is over whelming. Josephus as well as many other non christian historians, not only documented his existence, they claimed he did miracles, and verified multiple NT stories.

    The thing you are talking about with The "cannon" and extra books you reference with out any names. I assume you are talking about the gospel of judas, thomas, enoch, etc.. These are not scripture and never were. The textus receptus was the manuscripts than spawned from Atioch.
    Antioch was Biblically referenced as where the first church began.

    The council of Nicia is what you are referring to when you talk about putting the Bible together. This is a lie. The catholic church is not Christian, if you don't know that you have not read the Bible.

    I could go on and on, but its clear you have watched way too much history channel and don't know what you are talking about.

  6. Christ Saves

    You do realize that sun and son only correlate in English right? And the scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek, and there is no Sun/son match in that language. Yet again showing too much ignorance about the subject.

  7. pheldespat

    @ Christ Saves

    "Actually the evidence for Christ is over whelming. Josephus as well as many other non christian historians, not only documented his existence, they claimed he did miracles, and verified multiple NT stories."

    [citation needed] [Who were all this historians?]

    The evidence for Christ is underwhelming. Texts written decades after his supposed death by people who never met him.

    You make too many assumptions about what I know, what I don't know, what I have read/not read and what TV shows I see, and yet, you don't know the difference between canon and cannon nor can properly spell Nicaea.

    Out of curiosity: Do you believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago?

  8. eireannach666

    Jesus Shaves

  9. Flash

    The Miracles of Santa Clause is even more thought provoking. Millions of kids world wide say he exists, so it must be true.

  10. Capricious

    Plus, no one ever killed anyone else in the name of Santa Claus. Unless he was in the form of a cookie, of course.

    Mmmm cookies.

  11. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ pheldespat

    Actually the evidence for Christ is overwhelming. If you're going to say it's "underwhelming", than you have to be prepared to say the same for evidence for the existence of ALL well-known historical figures who lived before the middle ages. The historicity of Jesus is the most well-accounted for if we're talking about figures of ancient history, (google it, if you want citation)

    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    And to soothe your curiosity, no I don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, and yes I do believe in evolution.

  12. eireannach666

    @Achems_razor
    "evolveSun worship, Period!"

    Yes sir.
    If you worship the sun you get your prayers answered at about the same ratio. 40%.Also , it doesn't ask for money , or a day off. It gives yo light ,life and food. If you are supreme and ask for a day off, WTF, what kind of example does that set.

    If you're god has "Sun"days off , then why bother him with your hopes, dreams, expectations , an prayers. On his day off! Id be a vengeful "god"too.

    Selfish.

  13. Flash

    Sure. The man may very well have existed as a "mortal" person, but miracles?
    Do you really believe those stories?

  14. eireannach666

    Never.

    And Humpty dumpy sat on a wall. You know where he ended up?

  15. Canadian

    lol Achems Razor just got owned.

    As an atheist, statements such as "the catholic church is not Christian" makes me laugh my head off. It must be nice to fight in a fictional world of semantics and dogma rather than having to deal with scientific evidence and reality. It must be nice to be able to decide which part of the bible is literal and what part of the bible is metaphor at your will, and try to impose that on people as truth. The whole thing is so arbitrary, and fundamentally human.

  16. eireannach666

    @Canadian

    They arent Christian, they are Catholic.

    Big difference.

  17. Pacha

    I once sat with Jesus for a few minutes in London.
    He didn't speak but one look at those eyes and I knew it couldn't be anyone else.

  18. eireannach666

    @Pacha

    Not you too? I hope that was sarcasm. No?

  19. Pacha

    Not sarcasm no. It actually happened.

    But it sounds so crazy to me now, that years later I see things very differently and now I question what I, or anyone else, perceives as being real.

    If you see what I mean?

  20. eireannach666

    I do, for sure.

    Im Irish from both sides, so Ive had to be one thing on tuesday and wedsday another,growing up.

    Ive found that life is a harsh but very avid teacher. Most things are better taught by oneself.
    You have to decide what you belive and who you are.

    D$#@ . Now we are getting into philosophy , which I say to each his own and tit for tat.
    Just dont be stuck on one thing. Explore. Life is too short.

  21. Ben

    Jesus cannot be compared to any body (human) that has ever existed since creation.Every aspect of his life from Birth,death and ascension to heaven is mind-boggling and not only puzzling but sends one in an extra-ordinary marvel.We all know that magicians use tricks and illusions to do their so-called miracles.Jesus birth was a miracle(A woman gets pregnant when she sexually have intercourse with a man) ,It is written that this never happened with Mary-the mother of Jesus. At age 12,from the Passover visitation with his mother and Joseph,he disappears among the crowd then finally to be found in the temple asking questions to Religious Leaders-notable among this genius boy was his mode and manner of asking and the kind of questions he asked.He stattled those leaders in the temple.The Bible ,in Luke 2:47 ,reports,"All those who heard Him were amazed at his understanding and his answers".As if this was not enough,having been put to task by his "parents" why he didnot show up after three days,his answer was another was another mystery to the "parents" in vs 49. Jesus was,therefore ,no ordinary child. From his 1st miracle at the wedding in Cana,to healing extra-ordinary sickness.From opening eyes of those born blind to rebuking demons and casting them out of those that they possesed.In addition to all these miracles,defying scientific laws of gravity(walking on water),rebuking typhoons at seas,commanding infirmity spirits to leave the crippled to walk free,raising the dead and finally raising himself,this explains without doubt that Jesus proved ,beyong reasonable imagination, that his claims of being equal with God were true. In a nutshell,Jesus was/is God the creator of the universe.Simply put, God put on human flesh and walked among the people He created so that He may bring them to repentance and live with Him in eternity for ever and ever.John 1:10 confirms this fact," He came to the very World He created,but the world didnot recognise Him" I hope this explanation will solve the problem sorrounding why Jesus did His miracles.Motive? So that His creattion may believe that he,indeed, was the ONLY Saviour of man-kind.

  22. eireannach666

    @Pacha
    get on the forum so vlatko doesnt get us?

  23. Pacha

    Just off out actually. Going to visit some old churches (amongst other things) probably. :)

  24. eireannach666

    @Randy / Pacha

    Science H. Logic , you were right.They are even here.Dang Christians are like bees.

    @Ben dover
    "At age 12,from the Passover visitation with his mother and Joseph,he disappears among the crowd then finally to be found in the temple asking questions to Religious Leaders-notable among this genius boy was his mode and manner of asking and the kind of questions he asked.He stattled those leaders in the temple."

    Where was he until he was 30?

  25. eireannach666

    Pity is the feeling which arrests the mind in the presence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human sufferings and unites it with the sufferer. Terror is the feeling which arrests the mind in the presence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human sufferings and unites it with the secret cause.Ireland is the old sow that eats her farrow.

    J.Joyce

  26. Ben

    Jesus made a grand striking statement in John 11:25 when he said,"Iam the Resurrection and the life.Any one who believes in me,though he(including women )were dead, yet shall he live again' No wonder after raising Lazurus from the dead ,he later on proved that he had authority over life and death when he defeated the greatest enigma of man-kind by raising himself from the grave where he had spent three days.To me, Jesus was no ordinary man to be compared with magicians and illusionists. He is the one who created them instead.Jesus is beyond comprehension and decription.We simply have to accept Him in faith and those trying to put His miracles to tests are simply entertainers that want to give us more stories to watch and read but without any power to change us.Consider a display of powerful forces that rocked those who had come to witness the crucifiction of Jesus at Calvalry;the ripping of the temple curtain, an earth quake,an eclipse, then,Jesus dying without his legs being broken,and this will make you sit by the edge of your chair(couch);when Jesus rose from the dead -many saints who had died long ago were seen on Jerusalem streets.Can U imagin? Jesus was on a mission and whatever He did was because he wanted me and you reading this ,to live with Him in His Glory forever and ever.One day He will return to earth. This time no as a Redeemer but as the King of King and the Lord of Lords to judge the living and the Dead. All you need is accepting Him by faith but not to put His miracles to tests. Doing that would equate to an elementary one kid pausing as tutor to his teacher.

  27. Hardy

    "All you need is accepting Him by faith but not to put His miracles to tests."

    Woohoo! Blind submission without question!

    How I love the christian value-system.

  28. Ben

    @eireannach666
    The queston,"Where was he(meaning Jesus) until he was 30"? would be a good question depending on the motive for asking it.If the motive is based on wanting to challenge what was written about Jesus and showing doubt on who He claimed to be, then this makes it a wrong question that requires no answering considering ALL that is written about Jesus. Personally, i would rather MARVEL at this man's ewesomeness considering his dids & claims than ask or even bother to know where Jesus was frm age 12 to 30yrs.Imagine after reading all that was written about Hitler and then one asks,"Why did Hitler commit suicide"? The only immediate thought that comes to mind is that the person asking did not understand who Hitler was. My friend......@eireannach666.... Have you researched in depth who Jesus was/is for you to want to know where he was till age 30?

  29. eireannach666

    @ben dover

    "no answering considering"?
    I.E. no answer , typical and assumed.

    try again.

  30. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Funny how atheists here think they're so smart and "rational". Yet their denials of Jesus historicity are so trivial. What most historians can agree on are the following:

    1. Jesus was an actual man that lived.
    2. He made outlandish claims of being the saviour, the messiah, God etc.
    3. He was killed by the Roman Sanhedrin, and buried by Joseph of Arimathea.
    4. Tomb was empty 3 days after.
    5. Hundreds of eyewitnesses not only saw him alive, but have spoken to him (at least it's what they claim)
    6. These eyewitnesses were willing to die for what they believed, and most of them did.

    Now without believing that Jesus was who he claimed to be (heck the eyewitnesses could all have been hallucinating simultaneously, or perhaps he was really just half-dead and escaped from the tomb himself) what is the best explanation for those 6 facts -- that the majority of historians accept? The answer ofcourse is up to you, whatever you want to believe.

  31. eireannach666

    Who said I was an atheist?

    I never said jesux never lived . I ts just the whole divinity issue. Hes worm food as I will be. Not saying that he didnt thump good morales or principles , but thats something we all should have. Buddah , Lao Tzu, Isalm etc. Thats common knowledge , but dictate divinity.Sorry.

    Show me proof.

  32. eireannach666

    You guy like poetry ,right? When it goes along with this topic ?

  33. eireannach666

    Nazarene in the valley of persuasion.
    To receive last temptations , "Take a bite" said the serpent "eat of it.
    "Without no choice to do so, you cannot resist.
    Impaled crucifixion.
    Compassion forgot.
    Eternal damnation.
    Once upon a cross.
    Blasphemy, laughs at thee.
    Jesus you've been deceived.
    Struggling on the cross, Despite your god, question why?
    You were retrieved by the angel of light.
    Nazarene screaming on his crucifixion.
    Prophecy in its final contradiction.
    When you die is when the lie will be believed.
    Upon the cross, before the world to see.

  34. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Um.. I wasn't saying that you are an atheist.

    Be that as it may, given the 6 points that most historians can agree on, what is your likely hypothesis?

    This has been debated many times by people much smarter than anyone here, and the best alternative hypothesis was that those hundreds of people who claimed to have seen and spoken to the resurrected Jesus, and then died for this claim, were, to put it mildly, crazy. But I think this is just bias against the supernatural explanation which I think has more explanatory power.

    Unless, you have another hypothesis that can change my mind?

  35. i am become death

    josephus' accounts of jesus have been proved to be falsified by 12th century monks, even american encyclopedias can affirm this.as some of my conversations with christians degenerate after i've told them of the objective history of this period they say 'well if it didn't happen then why did all the apostles martyr themselves for jesus?' millions have died for names like,mao,hirohito,jones,'vernon'koresh and sorry but hitler too. besides there are more than 4 books on all these subjects and also written within 40 years of their occurence. and good luck getting exact narratives after that amount of time.

  36. eireannach666

    @ IlovemyselfmorethanI
    I cant change your mind, man .You just need to look at the facts and decide for yourself.There are facts in science . There are facts that support evolution . None that support your cause , just blind faith and superstition ,like any religion. Convert me , if you can. Isnt it your duty as a Christian?

    @i am become death
    take care of the light work please . my head hurts. Unless I can see some proof?

  37. Sean P

    The entire argument is false.
    1. Jesus did not have to convince the masses only the ones writing it down.
    2. If the modern superstitious can gather in mass because someone saw the virgin Mary in a corn chip, how hard would it be to convince a group of 1st century peasants they should be in awe.
    3.The numbers gathered at each event are only documented by one of four followers of Jesus. It's sort of like saying "Bush was the best president, Dick Chaney told me so"
    4. In those days like today the more flamboyant and showy you were the more people followed you. The more followers the better the pay. There were multiple people walking around the country side doing the same things.
    5. 2000 years and not even a postcard.

  38. Allen

    Let me stop you guys here.
    For anyone who read this comment, you can see where this kind of discussion is going.
    I'm pretty sure you've seen countless on the net about religion debates.
    And what have you learned?
    Have you ever seen any side say: Oh! Maybe he is right, I will admit my mistakes.

    So head the word of a guy on the net,
    Stop this nonsense once and for all.
    There is no pride to be taken in trying to sink someone else belief, whether you deem it true or not.

    If you guys still want to "convince" one another, there are more than enough forums available.

  39. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ i am become death

    Funny you should mention Josephus. What has actually been proven was that some of his works have been embellished. But as far as the case for Jesus is concerned, all that was needed was his concurrence that a Jesus did exist, and that he was killed by the Sanhedrin. Secular, and not so secular bible scholars agree that many of Josephus writings on Jesus were somewhat embellished, but the main point, which I just elucidated, was not.

    Really? Can you tell me of someone who died for a lie? Has anyone martyred himself for something that they knew was a lie? Isn't your analogy false under this context? Like I said, all the contentions here seem quite trivial. I suggest you do REAL research.

    @eirannach666

    I believe the facts support evolution, and the scientific methodology is a very good one. Why would you put words in my mouth and make it seem like I'm against science? You're creating a false dichotomy here. It probably is my duty, but sorry , I couldn't care less if you aren't converted, I just like debate.

  40. Yus Assaf

    Have faith in one another and you shall be rewarded with the power to create miracles.

  41. normal

    People are dying today in faith of the lies that are conceived by our world leaders. And stories that are told decades after the events happened
    by other than eye witnesses usually contain only part of the truth. just look at our history books... I believe it is only safe to say that there was once a man known as Jesus who people believed to be the son of god. It's to bad we can't get people to believe we are destroying our planet, if we could just imagine the power we would all have to create a better world...

  42. Sophia

    If we try to project Jesus as a magician, then we are distorting the life and work of Jesus. How can we limit him as a magician and recognize/ believe only the miracle things he did? We even try to confine his life into the miraculous virgin birth and resurrection!(beginning and end). We don’t give much attention of what he did in between of his birth and death. Christian faith should not be a magical faith! We must liberate ourselves from the distorted teaching of Christianity. Of course Jesus was a human being, a revolutionary young man. Who lived with the people and also challenged and fought against the empire. and Jesus was killed for the political reason....we must try to search the truth of the real Jesus!

  43. Reb

    IlovemyselfmorethanI, you are a f-ing moron. Could you please name some of the eye-wittnesses for us without resorting to the bible that was written by unknown people? Can you point us to sources written during the time of jesus that substantiate your claims? If you can you will be the first in history to do so.

    Have you heard of the suicide muslim bombers who blow themselves up in the name of allah? Did you ever hear of the Japanesse kamikazee pilots who willingly died for their country and god? Have you ever heard of Jim Jones or Heavens Gate and the fools that died for those cults? Those fools were all decieved and died for what they had been brainwashed to believe was true. Just brcause someone dies for a cause or religion only proves how stupid people can be. I would lay my life down in a second for my family or friends but any god can take care of itself and only a demon would demand such a sacrifice for themselves. What damn planet did you fall from? If you read the babble bible you should be able to detect it is a book of horror and bloodshed. Any being having anything to do with such a heinous teaching is not a just god but a lying devil. How many times does Jesus tell you fools that he is the morning star? The OT clearly tells the world that the morning star is Lucifer. Some of you are to damn stupid to breath.

    During the time that your jesus was said to have lived and preached there were over 50 well known historians who never wrote of him at all. The only accounts of his life came far later and none of the gospels can even agree on the simplest facts. If the bible proves anything about the gods of the bible, OT and NT, they represent the devil. That probably explains why christians are so damn mean and stupid. Who in their right mind would serve a child raping god or one who forced his 'chosen' to kill and eat their own children? How damn stupid can you be?

  44. Bluesmanwalking

    Wow, 15 minutes in & i'm out. This guy is the new kid on the block, cool looking, pretty boy, etc etc just like Chris Angel, & he uses the jesus ferry tale as his prop to make a name for himself.
    Do you people realise you're debating because of this ridiculous film, not documentary. LOL !

  45. i am become death

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI
    my point with josephus is that it is known to be compromised. even if we had definitive proof of jesus' existence that would not confirm divinity. people don't die for a lie, they die for belief. whether it be death at the stake for your belief in a heliocentric solar system, or the belief that the israelites have no place in palestine. muslims and hindus fighting in india and pakistan - at minimum one of them's dying for a lie, just cos they see it differently doesn't make it so. religion becomes religion because people believe it not coz its true. sorry i'm gonna take a chill pill and go and watch some carl sagans the cosmos.

  46. Pacha

    Jesus could have very easily learned a lot of the things he did in India.
    Makes perfect sense to me.

  47. Achems Razor

    @ Reb:

    Howdy Reb, long time no see.

    I concur as usual, as to what you are saying. No one could say it better than you!

  48. Chief

    In the midst of stupidity I actually thought that I would be able to do what Yeshua (Jesus)did and even greater things. I tried a few; almost lost a 2 year old son as a "faith healer" and in an exorcism bought watched hell break loose in the assembly. I concluded that the promise must have been only for those who were around at the time, especially since things were to transpire in that era.

    Stupidity can be overcome with knowledge.

  49. rebelliuss

    Anyone who starts a historical debate with "the Bible tells us.." can only be taken seriously by someone who already believes what the Bible say's, to quote the bible to someone who does not see it as a viable historical record is just stupid..
    no offence..;o)
    and has anyone ever considered the chance that Mary lied?, because she would've been stoned otherwise, she could've been raped for all we know.
    We all know history is written by the winners, I mean look at Caesar and his account of what happened in Gaul, we know most of it is Bull' to make himself more heroic and less tyrannic.
    Even a lot of Jewish scholars don't believe that most of the characters in the OT actually existed, people like Abraham ect. but that the OT was merely a moral compass to give the Jewish slaves in Babylon some pride and hope, after they were almost wiped out. Now if the original 'God's people' call their own book 'Myth', then what is everything that is born from that?..

  50. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ i am become death

    Brother, it is quite accepted that Josephus' writings point to the historicity of the man Jesus -- no serious apologist argues that because Josephus mentioned Jesus, therefore Jesus is God.

    Who dies for something he knows to be a lie? People die for stupid things, yes, but they are stupid things they believe to be true. It's either they did see Jesus alive, or they were all simultaneously hallucinating (or maybe you have another natural hypothesis, than posit it). But it is quite improbable that they lied about seeing Jesus, because they died in the hundreds proclaiming that they did. That's all I'm saying here. I'm not saying you should believe Jesus is God, I'm sure there are other naturalistic hypotheses that you would submit to. It's just that, I've heard them all, and they honestly don't seem plausible.

  51. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    No need to be so vitriolic. Your analogy is false because:

    They died because they claimed to have seen Jesus. So it's either 1. they were lying 2. They were hallucinating 3. they really did see Jesus (maybe Jesus was half-dead, maybe he had a twin, whatever) The fact of the matter is, hundreds of them were tortured and persecuted because they claim to have seen the risen Messiah.

    For your analogy to be sound, give me an example of a group of people who have died for something they KNOW to be a lie. Suicide bombers don't cut it, because they don't actually THINK it's a lie. Unless you'll argue one of the other naturalistic hypotheses, like Jesus had a twin, or he never actually died, or whatever.

  52. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Ben

    I respect you brother. I wouldn't really argue the way you have, because it seems you've skipped a lot of steps. But Christ's peace be with you.

  53. Reb

    Achems, I can only take these bible thumping id**** for a short time and I have to take a good long break. When the dead sea scrolls first appeared one of the original translators divulged the source of the so-called miracles and it was called amarita (magic) mushrooms. His book is called The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Jesus learned his magic and sorcery in the Egyptian mystery schools just as the crook moses did.

    Drugs and sex were the main component of Judaism and Christianity. Today the people just work themselves up in blithering idiocy and feel feelings and hear the calling. The music is used to get them worked into an emotional frenzy or mind coma. Jesus loved tripping and having sex with naked young men in the garden.

    It took over 60+ years to force the remainder of the scrolls out of the hands of the lying RCC and still there is a portion that will never be released. Religious freaks are the most stupid morons on the planet. Watch the doc online free called The Pharmacratic Inquisition and you will hear an earful of pure nasty truth.

    Ben, you sissy girly guy. I bet you would love to really get on your knees before j-zuz. You sound a bit light in your loafers. It takes a sissy with no balls to follow invisible men and proclaim love for them. You poor slobbering dimwit.

    In fact, the entire bible is about a people known as the Hyksos Shepherd Kings from lower Egypt. They were vicious lying thieves, rapists and murderers. We know them today as hebrews/jews. Sometime type in google 'the bible patriarchs were hyksos kings. These religious freaks are worshiping Lucifer!

  54. Epicurean_Logic

    Reb said,

    'Drugs and sex were the main component of Judaism and Christianity.'

    i am glad that they got something right.

  55. Reb

    Epicurean, pedophilia was another perversion they participated in along with human sacrifice, cannibalism and blood drinking. Moses and Joshua always told the men to kills all males including children and infants but to keep the women and little girl virgins for themselves. What a sick bunch of twisted mongrels.

    The disciple that Jesus 'loved' is never mentioned by name but thanks to extra-biblical writings we now know it was Lazarus, who was also the naked young man with Jesus in the garden 'praying'. Some praying!

    Lazarus' three days of being dead and Jesus calling him forth was the final stage of the initiation into the mystery school that Jesus was master of. The masons still practice a similar initiation.

  56. Epicurean_Logic

    reb have you seen Karen Armstrongs story of god? its in the religion section of TDF. It adresses some of the points you make. It describes the horrible things you talk of as the transition of the ancient middle easteners belief from paganism to belief in one god and puts the things you talk of into context.

    i also think that it is important to note that the religous lawgivers are the main culprits and not the simple man on the street.

    As a religous document i dont like the OT of the bible but it does have some fascinating historical and political connotations.

  57. Reb

    IlovemyselfmorethanI, the Sanhedrin was the Jewish High Court of Israel and there was nothing Roman about it.

    Get yourself a Talmud and read the Tractate of Sanhedrin and read how they state sex with girls 3 years old is allowed and preferred. The Talmud reigns supreme over the Torah and it completes the gory stories of the Torah in all it's gut wrenching glory.

    Christianity was created by jews to teach you fools to support them by military might and with your money because the 'bible says so' and you don't have sense enough to even investigate. Jews hate gentiles and they hate your god they made for you. They are nearly through with the need of your help and soon you will find your stupid selves living by the only law of the land which is the Noahide Laws (for gentiles only) They claim god gave these laws to Noah but you won't find them in any bible. They can only be found in the disgusting Talmud and any gentile who breaks just one of these laws will be executed by beheading. Bush Sr. signed these laws into public law in 1992 and can and will be put into action when all things are set in place for Agenda 21. Sure you moron christians, go ahead and support the devils who hate you and say that your jesus is a bastard and is boiling in human excrement and his mother was a whore. Read the Talmud and see what good old godly jews really think of the goy(dogs). Even jew jesus referred to all non-jews as dogs. Get a damn clue and shut up.

    Public Law 102-14 102nd Congress
    United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah

    There go every right you thought you had under our Constitution.

    This is a link to a site that will give you all horrors you need to know about these laws. It is your kind of site in that it is a christian one but they do have the minut details of these laws that are meant to enslave gentiles to serve jews in the new world of Revelation/NWO. According to the Georgia Guidestones they plan to eliminate 90% of the worlds population and the remainder will be the servants to the jews. You better wake up and pull your head from your stupid ass. The bible is the blueprint for the NWO devils and it was never written for you but against you. They tell you exactly what they are planning and you people keep marching along following the very ones who hope to damn kill you. The book of the Revelation is just that but you refuse to see what it is revealing. It also says that Satan/Lucifer decieves the whole world, not just part of it but the whole world. That includes all religions. How can any force deceive the entire world unless it is through the world's religions? Do you ever think for yourself or do you keep your head up the ass of some lying worthless preacher or up your own ass?

  58. Reb

    Yes, I read Karens book and saw the doc. She doesn't go far enough but does a good job.

    It has always been the lying preists and political leaders who have misled manking but people have to take responsibility at some point. In this day and age when we have more information than ever before and it is virtually at our fingertips, there is no excuse for this ongoing ignorance. These fools could put a stop to world domination and war if they would just wake the hell up and stop supporting the lies.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

    You can lead a m**** to knowledge but you can't make them think.

    The worst part is this mess they have all created together is a mess the rest of us will be caught in the middle of along with our families and little children. Christians were created to do just what they are doing. They ar sitting back supporting the jews "who are not jews but lie and are of the synogouge of Satan" and are too blind and brainwashed to see they have been had. They are truly the world's most dangerous group of people for they have become religiously blind and insane.

  59. Achems Razor

    @ Reb:

    That's right, Jesus Christ was a Mushroom! namely "Amanita Muscaria" according to the dead sea scrolls that "John Marco Allegro" was deciphering. Until the church pulled him off!

    According to him, the mushroom was a religion starter, and the religee's used to drink each others "Urine" because "Muscimol" the psychoactive element of Amanita Muscaria, remains active in urine for up to seven re-ingestions.

    For some interesting stuff video's etc:, whoever is interested, google "john marco allegro"

  60. rebelliuss

    @Ben.. go and watch 'Why do people laugh at Creationists'.. and you'll get all the answers you need to all your questions..;o)
    and i never alleged Mary WAS raped, i simply asked if it had been considered, I don't know.

  61. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    Thank you for your long, kilometric, nonsensical blathering. Oh, also, thanks for your non-answers to my question. I see what your strategy is; spout vitriol to hide stupidity.

    Let's see, where do I begin. You say:

    1. Jesus learned his magic and sorcery from egyptian mystery schools.

    2. Drugs and sex were the main component of Judaism and Christianity.

    3. Jesus loved sex with young men

    4. The whole Bible is about people who were vivious lying thieved and rapists and murderers.

    5. Religious freaks are worshiping lucifer.

    6. Christianity was created by jews to teach you fools to support them by military might

    And your evidence for all of this was a couple of things you found on the internet? Nice of you to say that last thing as well, and conflate it with this "Agenda 21". Nevermind that "Agenda 21" is simply a a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. I see now that you get your information from people like Dan Brown. You accuse Christians of downing the kool-aid, yet, judging from the way you present yourself, you seem no more intelligent than the conspiracy theorists who claim the jews did 911. Well, heres some evidence of just that:

    "According to the Georgia Guidestones they plan to eliminate 90% of the worlds population and the remainder will be the servants to the jews."

    Hilarious.

    Oh boy, oh boy. Instead of getting information from people like Dan Brown, and narrow-minded conspiracy theorists with zero credibility, read the works of, heck, secular bible scholars instead like Antony Flew, Carrier, Ehrman and the likes. (Gary Habermas research is good, but he's a Christian, so maybe not him)

    Oh, and I've already pointed out to you your faulty and rather stupid analogy. So can you point to me a group of people who willingly died for something they know to be a lie now? Or are you going to answer with more non-answers, more vitriol and more conspiracy theories akin to the Davinci Code? Funny, and you call me a moron.

    No real bible scholar, secular or otherwise, will agree to all the crap you just said.

  62. pheldespat

    To all self-called "Christians": Krishna and Buddha came hundreds of years before Jesus. They preached a message of love way before Jesus did. Jesus was a copycat.

    Enjoy your copycat religion.

    Also, for being followers of Christ, most of you are not very Christian. You don't follow Christ's message of love for everyone. Instead, you spread hate and consider that only the ones with your exact same beliefs will go to Heaven.

    End.

  63. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ pheldespat

    So your logic dictates that anyone who preaches about love is a copy cat? That's a pretty epic extrapolation there.

    Wait, I thought following Christ, according to this Rebellius idiot, was about worshiping Lucifer? Then how come you accuse us of being hypocrites for not following this "message of love" now? How much more selective can you atheists be in your attribution of cynicism?

    We spread hate and say that everyone who's not a Christian won't go to heaven? Uh, sure some people say that, but not all of us. In the Christian worldview, God is just and merciful. If I were to be judged, I'd rather be judged mercifully than justly -- I believe that I can get some mercy by following the teachings of Christ, otherwise I will be judged as I should be. Therefore, I don't think anyone will be separated from God solely on the basis of what their beliefs are.

  64. Reb

    IlovemyselfmorethanI, The people on this blog who know the truth about manmade religions know where to look for evidence and know the truth when they see it. I wouldn't waste on damn second of my time passing along anything to the likes of you. You are too st**** to understand what you read unless it is Dick and Jane and that probably poses problems for you. No matter what proof anyone could give dim**** like you, you all just get back into the hog pen of religion and roll around grunting in the same filthy slop.

    Thomas Jefferson once stated that Christianity makes one half of it's followers fools and the other half hypocrites. I think you qualify for both those qualities.

    pheldespat, I have to disagree and say 'I love' is exactly like his/her j-zuz and if you really pay attention to what he says and teaches he was one hateful arrogant s.o.b. Sure these people are Christians and that is what their religion is all about, hate and lies. Don't waste more of you time.

  65. Rebelliuss

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI.. it seems my first reply got moderated off, so let me just say, that when you misquote people for saying things they have not, and insult them at the same time, it makes you look like a pompous self righteous ignoramus....

  66. Pacha

    You can always rely on jesus to get everyone riled up can't you ;)

  67. pheldespat

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI

    I give up. It really is difficult to distort other people's words as much as you do.

    You win.

    I lose.

  68. D-K

    @Ilovemyself... said:

    "1. Jesus was an actual man that lived.
    2. He made outlandish claims of being the saviour, the messiah, God etc.
    3. He was killed by the Roman Sanhedrin, and buried by Joseph of Arimathea.
    4. Tomb was empty 3 days after.
    5. Hundreds of eyewitnesses not only saw him alive, but have spoken to him (at least it’s what they claim)
    6. These eyewitnesses were willing to die for what they believed, and most of them

    what is the best explanation for those 6 facts — that the majority of historians accept? The answer ofcourse is up to you, whatever you want to believe"

    Hi, I'm kinda jumping into a discussion that is well underway but I saw this and decided to reply, my answer is as follows:

    First of: they are not facts, they are claims. Facts are undisputable, and if they were, we wouldn't be doing this. People who don't agree with you beliefs don't simply believe something else, they simply doubt validity of the mentioned claims. Therein lies an important difference. Now, to the claims themselves.

    You claim that "the majority of historians accept (as fact I presume)" these claims. To improve your credibility, you could link to the source of this information, I'd be willing to invest my time to take a look at it. As it stands now, those claims might as well be plucked from thin air, there is no reason for anyone to accept them as accurate or even as actual claims.

    Skepticism rears its head when you account for the fact that quite some time has passed since Jesus' supposed existance. Eye witness accounts aren't evidence in today's trials by people from this age, why is one to believe claims made so long ago? The fact of the matter is, hypothetically; even if most historians would agree, truth does not lie in numbers, and people with a scientific mindset/critical thinkers need either proof/evidence (preferred) or at the least logical reasoning that supports why you believe what you believe.

    By linking to a credible source, you'd improve your own credibility and thus would allow people to be open-minded when you choose to exhibit reasoning. I'm assuming you'll go with reasoning if you wish to debate your side of the argument as I doubt you have evidence supporting your beliefs.

    I'll await your reply.

  69. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ pheldespat

    Hmm.. I wonder where I've distorted your words? See, this is the problem with every one of your arguments. It is just like as follows:

    After argument 1 is presented, counterargument is: "Thats not true, you're distorting my words, I know it, even if I'm unable to demonstrate how" Lol.

    This is exactly what you said:

    "To all self-called “Christians”: Krishna and Buddha came hundreds of years before Jesus. They preached a message of love way before Jesus did. Jesus was a copycat.
    Enjoy your copycat religion."

    to which this was exactly my reply:

    "So your logic dictates that anyone who preaches about love is a copy cat? That’s a pretty epic extrapolation there."

    So where was the distortion, genius?

    @ Rebellius

    I haven't misquoted you. In fact go read what you said. I've copy pasted EXACTLY what you've said. Don't try to disown your own ignorant claims because you've suddenly realize they are just that.

  70. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    D-K

    What I meant when I used the word "fact" was that even most secular Bible scholars agree they are indeed what transpired. How did they square that circle though -- they tended to formulate hypotheses based on pre-conceived notions. So a naturalist would have made a naturalistic hypothesis, a Christian would have simply posited the resurrection hypothesis etc etc.

    I think you at least agree that, based on the points I've just listed, any natural explanation seems implausible. And therefore, you chose to be skeptical at the points themselves. I don't know of any link that will explain all of this. I've studied it. But maybe, I'll just say this: William Lane Craig uses exactly these points in all his debates, and he debates, for the most part, Bible scholars. Among most (significant majority, but no one can say 'all', because there will always be fringe figures) Bible experts, what's in dispute is the resurrection hypothesis, and not the listed points themselves.

    But, if we removed our bias against the supernatural, we find that this explanation really is the most plausible one.

  71. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    Wow, more of this strategy of hurling vitriol to hide your stupi_ity and INABILITY to answer a simple question. See, that’s how people like you are, first pretend to be smart, and when showed up to be the imbecile that you OBVIOUSLY are, you start to engage in mud-slinging and hurl more vitriol to avoid having to answer arguments that expose your idioc_y –nice, but very predictable tactic.

    My religion is all about hate and lies? It was you who started the insulting, so not only are you a Conspiracy theorist idiot, but you’re also a hypocrite.

    I wasn’t passing ” along anything with the likes of you”, it was you who went about passing “along anything with the likes of me”, and it’s absolutely hilarious, as well as predictable, that you resort to this cop-out –since you have no intelligent argument or answer to give — of asserting you have so much to do with your time. That’s right, tell that to everyone who is able to expose you as the dum_ fu_k that you really are. Lol!

  72. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    You say:

    "Skepticism rears its head when you account for the fact that quite some time has passed since Jesus’ supposed existance."

    - The first gospels were written 20-30 years after Jesus' death. And they were based on oral tradition, which was practiced, presumably, right after Jesus' death. These beliefs, if you will, were incredibly radical considering the context of the time and place. Every single person had every predisposition to disbelieve everything that is written in the gospels, because it goes against the fabric of Jewish thought. Why did they survive? Because, according to hundreds of eyewitnesses, they have seen and spoken to the risen Messiah. They did not disown the claim even in threat of death. That's why the gospels and the oral traditions survived, despite having every reason not to.

    you say:

    "Eye witness accounts aren’t evidence in today’s trials by people from this age, why is one to believe claims made so long ago? "

    -- Eye witness accounts are indeed submitted as evidence. Historians have a method of verifying the historicity of an event. Using your logic, we wouldn't be able to verify the historicity of anything that happened in the far past. Ofcourse, the method doesn't involve taking things as they are written, but the historicity of Jesus is the most accounted for, when talking about ancient figures. You are simply biased, and so you're being selectively skeptical.

    You say:

    "The fact of the matter is, hypothetically; even if most historians would agree, truth does not lie in numbers, and people with a scientific mindset/critical thinkers need either proof/evidence (preferred) or at the least logical reasoning that supports why you believe what you believe."

    -- If most people who study a particular thing converge on similar hypotheses, that very well points to the hypotheses' credibility -- you don't know this? Again, using your logic, people "with a scientific mindset/critical" mindset wouldn't be able to verify anything that happened in the far past. You simply cannot give "proof" of anything that cannot be reduced to arithmetic. You can only have markers that point to a conclusion. And the people who studied the historical events that transpired around the time of Jesus have converged on the hypothesis that these listed points (which you've just echoed) actually happened.

    Again, let's be clear, all this do not point to Jesus' divinity. No, it is in defense of the 'listed points'. I will admit from the onset that I cannot give evidence that Jesus is God. It is impossible to give empirical evidence for the supernatural.

  73. Rebelliuss

    @ Ilovemyselfmorethani... u just keep making yourself look more ignorant.. maybe you should look more closely at who you're quoting... you must have me confused with someone else.. i have not mentioned lucifer in any of my comments... I should know.. ii i express an opinion , i stand by it. (Until i'm proved wrong..)

  74. Rebelliuss

    @Ilovemyselfmorethani.. since u decided to bring my name into your discussion , i will express my opinion on the question you originally posed... given the six points expressed.. i would say that if those people really saw jesus after he was supposedly crucified.. then he probably never really died in the first place.. that would be my conclusion.. simply one opinion..

  75. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Rebellius

    Hmm.. Yes I thought you and Reb were one and the same.

    See, you said "given the six points expressed", but your answer contradicts point 3, which is: Jesus was killed by crucifixion.

    When the Romans crucify someone, that someone dies. You can read about Roman crucifixion and how impossible it is to live through such an ordeal. And if Jesus didn't die, then why would the eyewitnesses die for the claim that they've encountered the risen Jesus? I don't think it is probable that Jesus met them and revealed that "You know what, I actually used to be dead, but as you can see, I'm alive now".

    These people knew Jesus died, and then claimed to have seen him alive, and then died for that claim.

    You might argue: well maybe they thought Jesus died. But that wouldn't be feasible as well. What do you think the Jewish sanhedrin would have said if this were the case? Simple: "You stupid fools, we never had Jesus killed"

    Conclusion: your answer doesn't at all seem plausible.

  76. Rebelliuss

    As far as i know.. jesus was on the cross a lot less time compared to what people usually were.. i have heard one argument that Pilate may actually have been so impressed and moved by jesus that he may have faked his death as to not start hostilities with the sanhedrin.. but Jesus could also have been only skin dead... all i'm saying is that it's easier to fake a death than a ressurection.... i don't believe there is anything less plausible in those arguments than in the supernatural one... but i'm not saying that means the supernatural one can be completely excluded.. i'm just saying that given the variables it's not the one i'd go for..

  77. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @Rebellius

    "As far as i know.. jesus was on the cross a lot less time compared to what people usually were.. i have heard one argument that Pilate may actually have been so impressed and moved by jesus that he may have faked his death as to not start hostilities with the sanhedrin.."

    --I'm sorry, but this argument has absolutely no basis at all, and is quite laughable in the face of the evidence. Like I said, you are biased against the supernatural explanation. Quite understandably so. But if you remove bias for one minute, you will realize that in the face of everything, it has the most explanatory power and is the best hypothesis given the listed points. And that's why you cannot convert a materialist/naturalist, because he will only submit to his pre-conceived notion of materialism/naturalism.

  78. D-K

    @Ilovemyself..

    "What I meant when I used the word “fact” was that even most secular Bible scholars agree they are indeed what transpired. How did they square that circle though — they tended to formulate hypotheses based on pre-conceived notions"

    The question then becomes, what are these pre-conceived notions? Notions are not fact, they are ideas/concepts, i'm not trying to argue semantics here, but you can't exactly call extrapolation upon a notion 'fact', no matter how many people agree. This is why the theory of evolution remains a theory, rather than we call it the fact of evolution.

    "I think you at least agree that, based on the points I’ve just listed, any natural explanation seems implausible"

    Any natural explanation for what, I don't understand what you're referring to here. Although I can assure you, I'm skeptical of all information, especially information without (credible) source. I am not biased against the supernatural, even if most people would be. I tend to examine hypotheses for their logical merit, I have no emotional investment in either side of the arguement.

    "Because, according to hundreds of eyewitnesses, they have seen and spoken to the risen Messiah"

    How were these eye witnesses recorded and preserved and how were they examined for authenticity? What words were exchanged, and were date and location recorded?

    "Ofcourse, the method doesn’t involve taking things as they are written, but the historicity of Jesus is the most accounted for, when talking about ancient figures. You are simply biased, and so you’re being selectively skeptical."

    How do you figure I am biased? Is it not reasonable to question the validity of given information? I don't see what would lead you to believe that i'm being selectively skeptical, I employ an objective approach and as such I can be considered skeptical of everything, but I'm not selectively skeptical. Such a statement leads me to believe you try to dismiss my questions as biased nitpicking, when they are in fact genuine questions of researchful nature.

    At this point you cannot realistically deduce my religious convictions and should refrain from baseless assumptions. There is no reason to be defensive when i'm being neutrally inquisitive.

    "If most people who study a particular thing converge on similar hypotheses, that very well points to the hypotheses’ credibility — you don’t know this?"

    I have no knowledge of such research, such is evident by my request for sources. I'm not trying to devaluate your point, I seek to educate myself by sharing in the knowledge you have already made yours. I cannot understand your viewpoint without this and as such we'd both be arguing our own points without effectively understanding each other's, and this would not lead to constructive discussion and would not result in a mutual understanding.

    You say in your conversation with rebellius that the supernatural explanation is more plausible, but you'll agree that it is not (by far) the only explanation. Over the course of history, many cases of supposed supernatural manifestations have been refuted by scientific explanations. You can't call people who factor in recorded (provable) history to the equation biased simply because it negates the most plausible theory. To date, there is been zero proof of supernatural manifestations, and many that have claimed otherwise, have been disproven or exposed a hoaxes.

    This naturally breeds skepticism and to brush people off as biased simply for sticking to factual knowledge isn't healthy discussion. It is being selectively skeptical.

  79. Reb

    @ilovemyself....
    ilovemyself wrote: "That’s right, tell that to everyone who is able to expose you as the dum_ fu_k that you really are. Lol!"

    If this doesn't make you want to join the 'christian' flock what will!! Given enough time the true 'spirit of christianity' always comes forth. Few 'religious' loonies can get as vicious and vulgar than those who claim to be followers of jesus. Is that the same mouth you praise your god with? Since you serve the devil I suppose it is appropriate, after all, you are indeed a child of your 'real' father. What a nasty nasty piece of work you are.

    Folks, ilovemeself is the perfect example of what fanaticism will do to a human mind and it is pretty damn scary.

  80. Rebelliuss

    @ IlovemyselfmorethanI... all i can say is, i am definitely not biased against a supernatural explanation since i have experienced some pretty unexplainable things of my own in this lifetime. but to say that the scenarios i put forth are 'laughable' makes you look biased against any natural explanation.. we all know that evidence can be manipulated and people can be lied to. there is more evidence of that than anything else in history. how many people claimed to have seen elvis after he died? or tupac? or any other myriad of famous people?... and i bet some of them would probably have died believing it to be fact.. but in the interest of fair play, i'll give you a chance to convince me. please tell me where i can find the official records and names of these people who died for the crime of witnessing the resurrection... another question.. during the middleages people were being executed for being witches... does that mean they actually were witches and were happy to be martyred for their belief in witchcraft?..

  81. Rebelliuss

    P.s.. torture can make people admit to just about anything.. look at the Spanish inquisition..

  82. Ben

    To all posting comments:

    Please avoid abusive language of any sort. Just post your comments without necessarily calling each other names that are insulting. Iam an extreme follower of Jesus. I call Him The Prince of Peace and the Conquerer of Death. I dont need proof as to whether my great great great grand father lived. For this i know ...otherwise where could i have come from. Simply put, i dont need proof as to whether Jesus lived.I chose to accept Him by faith.The assurance that all His promises are true is overwhelming and no body can change the belief i have in Him. But IF what is said of Him turn out to be true,then MANY people that lived before and are now living are in BIG trouble especially if you were told about him and the gospel He preached and denied Him.As for those who live before Jesus was born,God knows what kind of judgement He will use on them.Besides,one doesnot need to know Jesus in order to know that murder is a sin or stealing a neibour's property is bad. The answer is in the following Scripture i quoted in Romans(Read on).As for those who have chosen to follow Him by faith,they will have nothing to lose.This an assumption though ,otherwise, we (His followers)are on a sure deal that He lived,He Died and Rose again frm the dead and as the Bible states in Acts 1:8-10 ,He will come back again.

    "To date, there is been zero proof of supernatural manifestations, and many that have claimed otherwise, have been disproven or exposed a hoaxes" This is a quotation from D.K.
    Hello my friend D.K. By who????There is no "human" on the planet that can prove the existance of God and neither can any body ,later on, prove by what powers Jesus did His Miracles.Science will tell you that a heavy object will sink when placed on water.But he violated this principle. Can you prove such powers?(This is to assume that you believe He ever existed at all). Jesus is beyond description by our simple human mind.We have not been designed with a "proof equipment" by one who made us to prove Him. But this is the limit He went when creating us,
    Romans 1:20 (New Living Translation)
    20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

    God is God. I do not care whether you donot believe in Creation but as i asked before,"Can a wrist watch Just Happen"? You find it there with the tiny wheels inside rotating to precision and you say,'Ah!!! Look at this watch which happened by chance"!!! You would be deceiving yourself.Evolution is a lie and Darwin must have paid a heavy price for deceiving the whole world. But take it easy my friends.One day we shaLl ALL know who is wrong and who is right. This is what my Bible says,

    Philippians 2:9-11 (New Living Translation)

    9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
    and gave him the name above all other names,
    10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

    This includes Mohammedans,Buddhists,Confucionists,Shintoists,All Atheists,cults of all kinds,.There is ONLY one way to God and that way is JESUS for Jesus said so'

    John 14:6 (New Living Translation)

    6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

    .

  83. Rebelliuss

    my real problem with your religion is this, if your god is all 100% pure goodness and he created everything, then there would be no Evil, it's like squeezing lemon juice out of an orange, and there would be no debate as to whether he exists because his existence would be innate knowledge built into our genes.. however this is not the case..
    but you may believe what you want. another question, a priest who rapes kids, and then repents before dying, or an Atheist who has done nothing but good charitable works his whole life?.. which one gets into your heaven?..

  84. Reb

    @Ben, who died and put you in charge? Your fellow 'christian' is the only one using true filth and the 'f' word seems to come way too easy for that half-wit. You need to mind your own business and take your prissy butt someplace else. I would rather see a written 'bad' word anyday than to hear you dullards preaching your hateful god and his lovely invention of an ever burning hell. You can believe anyway you choose but so can the rest of the world and most of the thinking masses know what all religions are. If you don't like the opinions expressed here then by all means leave!

  85. Ben

    Reb: Unfortunately its 12:10 here in Jpn and i read your comment while preparing to sleep but it needs a long answer.Briefly though.... When God created the Universe, verything was in order and perfect.Then came rebellion.I mean the Fall of Man. After this,suffering came and since then man has lived in disobedience and denial to God. So .we lived in a fallen world BUT again God has provided a way for man to live with Him in Ho Glory (Eternity) for ever ONLY if man admits he is a sinner,repents and turn to Him through the person of Jesus Christ. U see Reb, God used Mary 2010 years ago and walked among us but because of what man is we thought we could silence Him but could not.U know the story!!
    My simple mind and yours cannot begin to reason why there is suffering,and use it as a basis for melting away God's mercy,love and justice that he will exercise one day on Judgement Day. We have no capacity to reason Him.OR even suggest the way he should have created us.

    As for a priest rapist and an atheist who does charitable acts......man.... the priest who has repented genuinely will go to heaven if he truely believed Jesus to be His Saviour and Lord while an atheist wont be saved by his charitable acts while he denied Jesus as Lord of his life. Even bib Laden will go to heaven f he Repents and believe Jesus is Lord of his life.

    We cannot understand how God fully does His things.We simply have to come to Him by faith alone.

    Reb take time and read this story told by Jesus and then see that Human Judgement is different from God's Judgement.

    Matthew 20 (New Living Translation) Story as told by Jesus

    Matthew 20
    Parable of the Vineyard Workers
    1“For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay the normal daily wage[a] and sent them out to work.
    3 “At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. 4 So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. 5 So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing.

    6 “At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’

    7 “They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’

    “The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’

    8 “That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. 9 When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. 10 When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. 11 When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, 12 ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’

    13 “He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? 14 Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. 15 Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’

    16 “So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

  86. D-K

    “To date, there is been zero proof of supernatural manifestations, and many that have claimed otherwise, have been disproven or exposed a hoaxes” This is a quotation from D.K.

    Hello my friend D.K. By who????There is no “human” on the planet that can prove the existance of God and neither can any body ,later on, prove by what powers Jesus did His Miracles. Science will tell you that a heavy object will sink when placed on water. But he violated this principle.

    You quote me as if though you question my logic, then go on to provide your own answer. Heavy things sink in water. Jesus (supposedly) didn't. Beyond the fact that there are several logical explanations for this, you choose to believe that it happened as written. Such is called a leap of faith, something a critical thinker is incapable of. Mediocal science, technological science, theoretical science are all based on the principle that no assumption counts for actual truth unless irrefutibly proven. As such, your explanation holds no scientific merit and can, logically, not be adopted by someone of scientific mindset.

    Allow me to provide you with counterarguments based on Jesus' miracle of walking on water.

    - He might have just been swimming, evolution as well as intelligent design both neglected to provide humans with the ability of swimming. It is to be learned. Water may have been considered hazardous at the time as people drowned being unable to swim. The man you call jesus may have taught himself the properties of water, he may have overcome sinking by trying various motions in the shallows.

    "Walking on water" could simply mean swimming, as he could have been the first to ever swim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not alot was known about jesus concerning the period between his 12th year leading up to age 30 (which is relatively old considering that time, but let's ignore this for now) He may have used this period in his life to learn of nature's properties and as such, perform many of his miracles, leading to credibility, which would result in people believing them and thus believing any forthcoming miracle as tue. Self-fulfilling prophecy. There would have been no term for "swimming" and because forward motion had been dubbed walking, he walked through/on water. Could have been mixed in translation as well.

    This remains anecdotal of course and is just a personal pondering of mine, but it explains his walking on water. His knowledge of water might have given him an idea to change water into wine as well, maybe his blood mixed with water gave the water the red color of wine, and maybe this is where drinkin the blood of christ comes from.

    What i'm saying is besides my personal possible theories (i'm not saying they're fact, simply ponderings) there are a multitude of other possibilities, and as such, the supernatural explanation actually seems less plausible.

    "Jesus is beyond description by our simple human mind"

    This seems highly contradictory when reviewing the astonishing detail in which believers attribute properties to him.

  87. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Hmm.. that's a lot of answers by a lot of people.

    Here goes:

    @ D-K

    you say:

    "The question then becomes, what are these pre-conceived notions? Notions are not fact, they are ideas/concepts, i’m not trying to argue semantics here, but you can’t exactly call extrapolation upon a notion ‘fact’, no matter how many people agree. This is why the theory of evolution remains a theory, rather than we call it the fact of evolution."

    -- I know notions are not fact. Let's not get tangled up on this, so let me re-phrase what I said about the 6 listed points ; the consensus among bible scholars is that those points actually occured. That's not to argue that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Some atheist bible scholars, for instance, accept those points as actually having happened without accepting Jesus' divinity -- so they formulated their own naturalistic hypotheses, because naturalism, to them, is a preconceived notion. One such hypothesis is that the eyewitnesses simply hallucinated having seen Jesus.

    you say:

    "Any natural explanation for what, I don’t understand what you’re referring to here. Although I can assure you, I’m skeptical of all information, especially information without (credible) source. I am not biased against the supernatural, even if most people would be. I tend to examine hypotheses for their logical merit, I have no emotional investment in either side of the arguement."

    --Any natural explanation as to why people, who've had every pre-disposition to disbelieve in a risen Jesus, believed in a risen Jesus, and were willing to die a very cruel death for the belief.

    you say:

    "How were these eye witnesses recorded and preserved and how were they examined for authenticity? What words were exchanged, and were date and location recorded?"

    -- So now you're arguing that this was made-up? I obviously won't be able to answer such questions. But if you're arguing here that the death of these early Christian eyewitnesses was made up, that would be a very tall order -- no historian would refute that it occurred. If your asking *why* no historian would refute it, then I'd have to say that I don't know, but I'm quite sure it's because they've studied the matter extensively and found all the evidence in concurrence with that fact (yes I use the word fact because it is pretty much a fact that it occurred, like it's a fact that Alexander the great was an actual Man that lived. If you're going to be so strict about it, then let's never use the word fact when describing historical events since they can never be proven to a mathematical certainty.)

    you say:

    "How do you figure I am biased? Is it not reasonable to question the validity of given information? I don’t see what would lead you to believe that i’m being selectively skeptical, I employ an objective approach and as such I can be considered skeptical of everything, but I’m not selectively skeptical. Such a statement leads me to believe you try to dismiss my questions as biased nitpicking, when they are in fact genuine questions of researchful nature."

    --(for ease, let's call the 6 listed points 'X')
    Ok, so you're not biased. But historians have determined the validity of X by using the same methods of research in determining the validity of other historical events. Gary Habermas, a bible scholar, keeps pointing this out. So without new information that would refute X, for you to be unbiased, you would also have to be skeptical about the historicity of everything that was said to have happened before the 4th century. Unless, ofcourse, you simply don't care about other historical events during this period and have given none of them much thought.

    you say:

    "At this point you cannot realistically deduce my religious convictions and should refrain from baseless assumptions. There is no reason to be defensive when i’m being neutrally inquisitive."

    -- Are you sure you're being neutrally inquisitive? Ok point taken, but I have the feeling that you will stick to asking why I think X is true. We can go on and on and on about this. Like I said, the consensus among historians is that X is true. I'm not a historian, and even if I am, I wont be able to show in this platform all the names of the eyewitnesses how their testimony was recorded, etc. You either accept it or not, if you don't accept it, then argue why you don't. My simple argument on why I accept it is because most historians do.

    you say:

    "I have no knowledge of such research, such is evident by my request for sources. I’m not trying to devaluate your point, I seek to educate myself by sharing in the knowledge you have already made yours."

    -- see previous reply, as it applies here as well.

    you say:

    "You say in your conversation with rebellius that the supernatural explanation is more plausible, but you’ll agree that it is not (by far) the only explanation."

    -- Given X, point to me another explanation, and I'll show you why the supernatural one is more plausible. You can't just argue that there are other explanations and expect that to be a logical refutation to what I said. What are the "other explanations" that you think will be able to refute this assertion?

    you say:

    "Over the course of history, many cases of supposed supernatural manifestations have been refuted by scientific explanations."

    -- You seem to be going off at a tangent here. This has nothing to do with what we are debating about. I'm not arguing that you must accept the supernatural hypothesis of Jesus being God. I'm saying X is accepted by most historians. Some people won't accept X, because once X is accepted, it necessarily follows that the most plausible explanation for X is the supernatural one.

    you say:

    "To date, there is been zero proof of supernatural manifestations, and many that have claimed otherwise, have been disproven or exposed a hoaxes. This naturally breeds skepticism and to brush people off as biased simply for sticking to factual knowledge isn’t healthy discussion. It is being selectively skeptical."

    -- You cannot have "proof" of anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. And I don't think you can argue that there has been zero *evidence* (not proof) for the supernatural, coz there has been lots. Unfortunately, no one can have empirical/scientific evidence for the supernatural, because supernatural is not natural. Probability, and not its nonexistence, dictates that most of these supernatural claims will be "disproven or exposed as hoaxes". And here, you again, go off at a weird tangent. See you admitted that you are naturally skeptical of the supernatural. But I'm not trying to get you to believe in the supernatural, what I'm trying to get you to agree on is X -- which has no supernatural claims whatsoever. Most people brush off X, because it is inescapable that given X, the supernatural explanation becomes more plausible. Please keep this in frame, and try not to stray away from the topic. You keep asserting that I'm unreasonably labeling you biased against the supernatural, but that's because you keep unreasonably requiring me to prove X. If you have an argument against X, then elucidate it, and stop asking me to prove X -- I've already said the consensus among bible historians is that X is true, if you don't think so, then show me why. Asking me to show you why I think X is true is a cop-out for having to provide argumentation.

    you say (repeated):

    "This naturally breeds skepticism and to brush people off as biased simply for sticking to factual knowledge isn’t healthy discussion. It is being selectively skeptical."

    -- The supernatural you say "naturally breeds skepticism"? But where in X is my supposed supernatural claim? This seems like an admission that you won't accept X, because you agree that the supernatural hypothesis becomes more credible. Before you accuse me of putting thoughts in your head, re-read your tangential arguments.

  88. Rebelliuss

    @Ben.. your answer to my question tells me all i need to know about what you believe..
    you claim that no-one can understand what your god does or why, yet you have condemned people to your hell in the name of said god..hmm.. i wonder what he thinks about that, given that supposedly he is the only one who can judge.. and a judge who lets a child molester into heaven just because he believes he exists is not a god i want to follow. but goodluck with that.

  89. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    As expected, you, again, have no point whatsoever. You spread your insults and vitriol, yet cry afoul when the same is done to you. Are you a child? seriously, you seem like a petulant little child. Adults would scarcely display such overt hypocrisy as you just have. See, your childish style may work in the playground, but in the real world, it just exposes your mental limitations. You are such a childish hypocrite, I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who thinks of you narrowly.

  90. D-K

    @ilovemyself..

    Quite a substantial reply, I must say. I'll delve into at in an hour or 2, when time is on my side.

    Until then, I'll leave with this: there is no reason to clogg up comments by playing conscience to people. Leave them be, stick to valid discussion, this way I will not have to wade through unneacessary conflictive comments, trying to find the interesting ones.

    I'm aware of the irony in this btw, but I speak truth, I think you'll agree upon further reflection.. Await my reply, good sir.

  91. Achems Razor

    @ ilovemyselfmorethani:

    I do not think of @ Reb: narrowly. He knows more about the bible, (bibles), than all of you religious ire put together! On many posts on TDF.

  92. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Rebellius

    you say:

    "all i can say is, i am definitely not biased against a supernatural explanation since i have experienced some pretty unexplainable things of my own in this lifetime."

    *(6 listed points = X)

    --Then why won't you accept X?

    you say:

    "to say that the scenarios i put forth are ‘laughable’ makes you look biased against any natural explanation."

    -- No, it's laughable because Joesph of Arimathea, the man who buried Jesus, was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. How can Pilate placate the sanhedrin by "faking" Jesus' death by subjecting him to little time on the cross. No evidence supports this hypothesis. There were witnesses to the crucifixion and Jesus himself was buried by a member of the sanhedrin. The argument seems a bit thin in the face of the evidence. And, I'm sorry but it is quite funny to imagine Pilate and his roman subjects conniving with Jesus to put on a show for the sanhedrin. Imagine Jesus saying beforehand "try not to hammer down the nails too deep!"

    you say:

    "we all know that evidence can be manipulated and people can be lied to. there is more evidence of that than anything else in history."

    --agreed.

    you say:

    "how many people claimed to have seen elvis after he died? or tupac? or any other myriad of famous people?… and i bet some of them would probably have died believing it to be fact.."

    -- Many people have claimed to see Elvis. Let me remind you though that during the time of the early Christians, there was no lethal injection, or anything of that sort. When they kill you, you die an extremely brutal death. Do you seriously believe that there exists someone who claims to have seen Elvis alive, that will be willing to die an extremely brutal death for this belief? Even if I really saw Elvis alive, I would be glad to say that I made the whole thing up under threat of chopping away my thumb. These eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection were either extremely moved in some incredible way that they were willing to die an extremely brutal death for the claim, or they were extremely insane to have died for something they knew to be a lie.

    you say:

    "i’ll give you a chance to convince me. please tell me where i can find the official records and names of these people who died for the crime of witnessing the resurrection…"

    -- I will be unable to do that. Remember X? It's included in X, and the consensus among bible scholars is that it really did occur. Again, most will try to deny X, despite X by itself not claiming anything supernatural, since given X, the supernatural explanation seems the most plausible. I'm not saying that you should accept the supernatural explanation, you're free to resort to any natural explanation given X. But on what basis do you deny X? X in itself makes no supernatural claims. Isn't it because you would much rather avoid what follows?

  93. Reb

    @ilovemyuglymouth...I am only getting on your LOW level and now I can finally interpret what you are saying. Tell me if this is accurate.

    "jesus hoot, cross hoot hoot, witnesses hoot hoot hootie hoo, heaven hoot hell hoot me me me hoot hoot hoot. hoot the same old hoot that every hootin fool has hooted for hundreds of hooting years and all you end up with is another ignorant blow hard hooting in the wind. Go hoot yourself.

  94. Rebelliuss

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI.. i appreciate your answer, but you ignored my final point, just because the official story was they were killed because they claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, doesn't mean they actually were, like i said, and even you said, people will admit to just about anything under torture, hence the witch example. another problem i have with all this is where were all these thousands of people who he had helped with his miracles when he was put on trial?.. surely if they really thought he was their saviour at least a few thousand or even hundred would have tried to save him when he was on his way to the cross?..
    believe me i am not biased, because even if he did this it would not make me think he was a god, i really do believe that there are more things between 'heaven and earth' than we understand. but in this case i think there are too many variables to be certain and base a whole belief system on. i mean he could've been an alien.. if you have a truly open mind then i recommend you read Zacharia Sitchin and his views on where we came from based on the writings of the Sumerian civilisation of ca. 6000 thousand years ago and how they correlate with a lot of biblical writings, one very interesting artifact is a cave painting/carving from that era portraying our solar system with all the planets in their right position.. very interesting stuff..;o)

  95. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ rebellius

    "just because the official story was they were killed because they claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, doesn’t mean they actually were, like i said, and even you said, people will admit to just about anything under torture, hence the witch example."

    -- 1. If you're saying that you disagree with the official story (which is a part of X) then on what basis do you disagree with it? I'm beginning to think, since you've not provided any argumentation that would underpin your reasons for disbelief, that you disagree with it simply because you don't like what follows, which is: supernatural explanation = most plausible.

    --2. If you're saying that they were forced to admit that Jesus rose from the dead under threat of torture and death. Then who forced them? What they were actually being forced to admit to was that 1. Jesus was a crackpot, and 2.no resurrection occurred. The eyewitnesses didn't want to, thus they were tortured and killed. And lastly, why would the Jewish authorities force them to admit to something that is contrary to what they themselves demand the people believe? It doesn't make sense.

    you say:

    "i mean he could’ve been an alien.."

    -- Yes He very well could've been. Like I said, I'm not stopping you from forming your own natural hypotheses, I'm getting you to agree on X.

    you say:

    "i recommend you read Zacharia Sitchin and his views on where we came from based on the writings of the Sumerian civilisation of ca. 6000 thousand years ago and how they correlate with a lot of biblical writings"

    -- Ok, I will.

    Man, this is actually not getting anywhere, so maybe we should just leave it at that. But, Thank you for engaging me in debate.

  96. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    "jesus hoot, cross hoot hoot, witnesses hoot hoot hootie hoo, heaven hoot hell hoot me me me hoot hoot hoot. hoot "

    -- Seriously? Like I said.. childish.

  97. Rebelliuss

    the reason i talked about the possibility of them being forced to admit to seeing this event is that then there was an official reason to kill these people by calling them crackpots or heretics or whatever, you said that they were killed for refusing to deny the event. again i bring up the witches.. were they really witches?.. and they were burnt at the stake.. pretty gruesome and painful i'm sure you'll agree. but my biggest problem with "X" is how did all these historians arrive at the consensus that all these witnesses died for this belief with out any records of it. or is it that you just don't know how they reached the consensus, but just know they did?, and maybe you can name some of these historians so i can try to find out on my own, as i have tried to find something on the net about these witnesses but have only found anecdotal references... I feel i have provided argument as to why i can't come to your conclusion, there are simply too many variables.. if there were documentation of these so called witnesses' names and deaths then maybe i would be able to come to the same conclusion as you.. i mean 'supernatural'.. not 'god'.. but otherwise it would be the last conclusion i could come to given the current information provided.. your whole argument presumes the sixth point to be fact, yet all you say is a lot of historians agree on it.. how and why they agree on it then becomes the most important point.. can you understand my scepticism?..

  98. Rebelliuss

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI... if this is all there is to say then we'll agree to disagree.. thank you for the discussion..;o)

  99. D-K

    @ilovemyselftwiceaday

    You say naturalist's based hypotheses on pre-conceived notions, yet you seem ignorant towards your own to credit the supernatural as most plausible. You say there can't be empirical evidence but you don't support that claim. There hasn't been empirical evidence but that doesn't mean there can't be. That being the case, supernatural's credibility takes a hit and you supporting it as most plausible, becomes a pre-conceived notion.

    –Any natural explanation as to why people, who’ve had every pre-disposition to disbelieve in a risen Jesus, believed in a risen Jesus, and were willing to die a very cruel death for the belief

    As reb or rebellius already pointed out, there can be no accurate account that these people were willing to die for their belief. Torture was common practice in those times, especially in the face of insulence towards authority. Folk at the time were dimwitted (in comparison) and easily manipulated, variables that don't support your cause, nor do they dismiss.

    So now you’re arguing that this was made-up? I obviously won’t be able to answer such questions. But if you’re arguing here that the death of these early Christian eyewitnesses was made up, that would be a very tall order — no historian would refute that it occurred. If your asking *why* no historian would refute it, then I’d have to say that I don’t know, but I’m quite sure it’s because they’ve studied the matter extensively and found all the evidence in concurrence with that fact (yes I use the word fact because it is pretty much a fact that it occurred, like it’s a fact that Alexander the great was an actual Man that lived. If you’re going to be so strict about it, then let’s never use the word fact when describing historical events since they can never be proven to a mathematical certainty.)

    I'm not arguin anything, i question the validity of your argument as it is based on nothing. asbolutely nothing. No you cannot answer those questions, and I'm quite curious to know who can? If noone can, then this point falls under the catagory of anecdotes, not evidence. Again you seem to base a notion upon an assumption and claim it to be evidenced by lack of opposing theories. What do you mean if i'm going to be so strict about it? You're damn right i'm going to be strict about potentially lifechanging claims, it's called scientific scrutiny and it is based in logic. I'd also very much like you to refrain from calling things facts when they're not facts, it makes you look gullible and i'll be damned if i'm to debate someone gullible with these lengths.

    So without new information that would refute X, for you to be unbiased, you would also have to be skeptical about the historicity of everything that was said to have happened before the 4th century. Unless, ofcourse, you simply don’t care about other historical events during this period and have given none of them much thought.

    I explained to you already, i AM skeptical of everything, especially matters of ancient times. Skepticism is healthy when looking at matters that carry the potential of profound changes in thought and lifestyle. To be easily swayed in such matters is to be easily influenced in thinkin patterns, which would make me an idiot. I am not an idiot.

    Are you sure you’re being neutrally inquisitive? Ok point taken, but I have the feeling that you will stick to asking why I think X is true. We can go on and on and on about this. Like I said, the consensus among historians is that X is true. I’m not a historian, and even if I am, I wont be able to show in this platform all the names of the eyewitnesses how their testimony was recorded, etc. You either accept it or not, if you don’t accept it, then argue why you don’t. My simple argument on why I accept it is because most historians do.

    Gathering from this I can only conclude that your belief-system and your view of the world is based on the consensus of mere men concerning situations that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, give or take. That is neither a scientific nor is it a religious approach/mindset. You realize this raises questions..?

    point 4 in x is the only point that need be refuted. He could be freed from the tomb, escaped from the tomb in several ways, or maybe he was never put in the tomb. Logical explanations. As I mentioned, perhaps you are biased towards the supernatural explanation.

    You seem to be going off at a tangent here. This has nothing to do with what we are debating about. I’m not arguing that you must accept the supernatural hypothesis of Jesus being God. I’m saying X is accepted by most historians. Some people won’t accept X, because once X is accepted, it necessarily follows that the most plausible explanation for X is the supernatural one.

    No, I refute this as i believe you see my skepticism towards the supernatural as a reason to dismiss X without actually considering X. Your claim that x is necessarily followed by the supernatural is ridiculous, besides the fact that it doesn't have to be to most probable, even if it was, that doesn't mean it necessarily follows, that's biased thinking.
    You can't call the supernatural probable or even plausible without first showing or reasoning why it exists. The supernatural fuels your assumptions and because of that, it is very much integral and not a tangent.

    I don't think x is true as there is no way of ever proving it is. I don't think it's a total lie but the routes leading up to x is based on assumptions and shaky notions. I dislike assumptions and notions, because there is nothing inherently scientific or true about them. And i'm not copping out, you deliver x then ask people to refute. That's not how it works, YOU have to provide the reason why X is true, to claim that it's because of consensus of historians is bogus, that is rationalization, not a reason to adopt an illogical worldview.

    There is nothing that can prove or disprove X, that is the beauty of it, but X alone is nowhere near enough to base your religious views on, so the supernatural part of the equation is hardly a tangent.

    There is not one fact in your reasoning, it stands and falls with the claims of people of 2000 years ago, seeing things they did not understand, and you're telling me that it is logical for you to not only believe, but rearrange your lifestyle for.

    That is illogical.

  100. D-K

    my comment seems to be awaiting moderation... Sorry vlatko, that's gonna take a few minutes to scan.

  101. Reb

    @ilovemyemptyhead

    Aw come on now, no more hooting for jesus, no more hooting 'f' words from the hooting holy roller hooting hypocrite?

  102. kinai

    This is a very, very poor documentary. If I got it right, they picked an illusionist to try to recreate jesus' miracles. If he can't, then they must be of supernatural origin. As it happens, he's a firm christian believer. So when he says, I can't do it, it leaves me doubtful.
    What I don't understand is the point of the documentary. Prove that the miracles were real because they couldn't be replicated? This is a fallacious claim, because the postulate is that the scriptures are 100% reliable in their account.
    They bring on all the evidence they need to rationalize jesus' stories (miracles similar to previous' prophets) but fail to draw the logical conclusions. The narrator repeats himself several times and hammers on certitudes. Wow. This documentary is the pinacle of intellectual dishonesty.

  103. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    That's right, keep talking. I'm sure someone will eventually give you the attention you so desperately yearn for.

  104. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    "You say naturalist’s based hypotheses on pre-conceived notions, yet you seem ignorant towards your own to credit the supernatural as most plausible. You say there can’t be empirical evidence but you don’t support that claim. There hasn’t been empirical evidence but that doesn’t mean there can’t be. That being the case, supernatural’s credibility takes a hit and you supporting it as most plausible, becomes a pre-conceived notion."

    -- When I said that, I wasn't accusing anyone of ignorance, but was stating fact. Everyone tends to base their conclusions on pre-conceived notions. What I was actually saying here was that you are welcome to believe any hypothesis. What I don't think you are warranted to do is refute X by asking me to prove X -- since this can go on forever. This being a platform wherein we obviously cannot engage in a debate at such a length, the reasonable thing for you to do is to refute X with an argument or some evidence of your own. It would be very tedious to keep asking me to prove X. My evidence however that shows X to be true is that most experts who have studied the historicity of Jesus, secular or otherwise, have come to the conclusion that X is true. On what grounds are they able to do this? I'm sorry but I don't know. My guess is that they studied the subject extensively.

    On the "empirical evidence" you're conflating 2 different topics. I said there can't be empirical evidence for the supernatural ('empirical' used in the scientific context would mean that it is *testable*. The supernatural cannot be tested for because by definition, it lies beyond the natural), but ofcourse there is empirical evidence for X (ancient writings, manuscripts objects that historians have studied, cross-checked etc), which, by itself, makes no supernatural claims.

    "That being the case, supernatural’s credibility takes a hit and you supporting it as most plausible, becomes a pre-conceived notion."

    -- It may very well be a "pre-conceived notion". In fact, yes, I think it is a pre-conceived notion. But let's not commit the genetic fallacy here. Nevertheless, I assert that given X, the supernatural hypothesis seems the most plausible.

    Your counterargument for this is simply

    1. there are other hypotheses (without pointing out to one and demonstrating why it is more plausible)

    2. It is a pre-conceived notion (genetic fallacy)

    3. X is not true (without expounding on what basis you believe X to be false)

    [I'll say again why I think X is true: Experts who have studied the matter extensively have come to the conclusion that X is true. Again, this is not an argument for Jesus' divinity]

    "As reb or rebellius already pointed out, there can be no accurate account that these people were willing to die for their belief."

    -- Rebellius pointed that out, reb was only able to point out his stupidity. And yes, there is evidence that shows "these people were willing to die [and did die] for their belief". It's in the writings of the early Christians and the apostles. Whether you would like to believe or not, this IS evidence. They fall in the category of 'Ancient Epistles'. Like any ancient manuscript of this kind, we have to take them to be true, unless we can show why they aren't! All we know about Homer, Socrates, Alexander the Great, we know through ancient writings about them. We can dismiss some of the information we find, if it contradicts other historical information that, through rigorous investigation, we find to be more credible.

    "Torture was common practice in those times, especially in the face of insulence towards authority. Folk at the time were dimwitted (in comparison) and easily manipulated, variables that don’t support your cause, nor do they dismiss."

    -- What does this have to do with anything? Are you arguing that they might have been tortured to admit that they saw the risen Jesus? That would be odd, since there was a very strong Jewish context during that time. Why would people be tortured to commit blasphemy? They were tortured BECAUSE they committed blasphemy.

    If you're arguing that people back then were dimwitted and therefore simply believed Jesus had risen from the dead because of a little prodding from the apostles, then that would very odd as well. Don't you think it's unlikely that the apostles, who themselves died a cruel death for this claim, would have been able to convince hundreds of dimwitted fools, who had every predisposition to believe otherwise given the context of that time, to die a very cruel death for the same claim that they did not previously believe? A bit of a stretch isn't it?

    "I’m not arguin anything, i question the validity of your argument as it is based on nothing."

    -- You mean my argument for the truth of X right? It's based on rigorous study on the matter. Do you think these historians are that boneheaded? You're welcome to believe anything you want. But people much smarter than you and I have concluded, through rigorous study, that X is true. Simply saying that that's "nothing" is an argument that seems to be "nothing".

    "No you cannot answer those questions, and I’m quite curious to know who can? If noone can, then this point falls under the catagory of anecdotes, not evidence. "

    -- An "anecdote" is evidence. Depending on the anecdote, and who's making it, can we then categorize them as strong or weak evidence.

    See, this was your question: "How were these eye witnesses recorded and preserved and how were they examined for authenticity? What words were exchanged, and were date and location recorded?". I have to say that I cannot provide an answer for this. Fortunately, we (not me) have the writings and manuscripts that verify X. These serve as the evidence. These ancient documents were studied and cross-checked extensively and was the impetus for all those historians to conclude that X is true. (Which is not to say that Jesus was who he claimed to be)

    "Again you seem to base a notion upon an assumption and claim it to be evidenced by lack of opposing theories."

    -- I did no such thing. I'm logically basing a notion on an accepted assumption. I say "logically" because I can illustrate why, after removing bias against the supernatural, it would seem the most logical explanation. I've never said there were no opposing theories. What you seem to be doing on the other hand, is basing a notion on an assumption that X is false, without illustrating why X is false.

    "What do you mean if i’m going to be so strict about it? You’re damn right i’m going to be strict about potentially lifechanging claims, it’s called scientific scrutiny and it is based in logic. "

    --You, again, misunderstood. What I meant was, if you're going to be strict about the use of the word "fact". You previously went on a rant about my using the word to describe X. If I can't use it to describe X, because you say X cannot be proven, then might as well not use it to describe any historical event that occurred before the 4th century, because none of those can be proven as well -- since having strong evidence is not proof. All accepted historical events before the 4th century has been arrived at using the same methods they've used to conclude X is true. If we can't use the word for one, we can't use it for any.

    "I’d also very much like you to refrain from calling things facts when they’re not facts, it makes you look gullible and i’ll be damned if i’m to debate someone gullible with these lengths."

    -- Then we both must refrain from using the word "fact" to describe any historical event that occurred before the 4th century. I cannot say it's a fact that Socrates was man that lived? That's a bit restrictive now, don't you think?

    "I explained to you already, i AM skeptical of everything, especially matters of ancient times. Skepticism is healthy when looking at matters that carry the potential of profound changes in thought and lifestyle. To be easily swayed in such matters is to be easily influenced in thinkin patterns, which would make me an idiot. I am not an idiot."

    -- Ok, agreed.

    "Gathering from this I can only conclude that your belief-system and your view of the world is based on the consensus of mere men concerning situations that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, give or take. That is neither a scientific nor is it a religious approach/mindset. You realize this raises questions..?"

    -- No, my acceptance of X is based on "the consensus of mere men" who have been studying X extensively for generations. And have the authority, more than anyone, to make claims about the validity of X.

    And youR un-acceptance of X is based on what? For the sake of being contentious? To avoid having to come up with a more plausible alternative hypothesis as an explanation for X? The ONLY counterargument Iv'e heard from you is that: 1. I must prove X, to a degree of certainty of your choosing, before you believe it. See, that's not an argument, its a cop-out from having to provide an argument.

    "point 4 in x is the only point that need be refuted. He could be freed from the tomb, escaped from the tomb in several ways, or maybe he was never put in the tomb. Logical explanations. As I mentioned, perhaps you are biased towards the supernatural explanation."

    -- Still trying to refute X? What is the evidence you have for these assumptions? The evidence, according to the people who have studied it, points to the conclusion that Jesus died from the crucifixion he was subjected to. Your refutation is an assertion backed-up by nothing.

    "No, I refute this as i believe you see my skepticism towards the supernatural as a reason to dismiss X without actually considering X."

    -- Ok, but you still haven't told me on what grounds you dismiss X. Your dismissal of X, for reasons that put you at odds with the consensus of people who have studied X extensively, compounded by the fact that you have provided no evidence for any of the refutations you've given for X, leads me to believe that you have nothing. Prove me wrong then.

    "Your claim that x is necessarily followed by the supernatural is ridiculous"

    -- Assertions not followed by argumentation.

    "besides the fact that it doesn’t have to be to most probable, even if it was, that doesn’t mean it necessarily follows, that’s biased thinking."

    -- You can't say it's not the most probable, without giving another explanation that would seem, at least to you, more probable. The problem is, up to this point, you've given nothing of this sort. Let me start it up for you: Ok, given X, what is the more probable hypothesis?

    "You can’t call the supernatural probable or even plausible without first showing or reasoning why it exists."

    --I did. A dozen times now. Here it is again: Given X, the most probable explanation is the supernatural one. Therefore, its probable that the supernatural exists.

    "The supernatural fuels your assumptions and because of that, it is very much integral and not a tangent."

    -- You misunderstood, yet again. I said it was a tangent, because I wasn't arguing that YOU should believe in the supernatural hypothesis, so don't make it seem like I was. I was arguing that X is true. Given X, you're free to believe anything you want; free to elucidate any hypothesis that you choose.

    But given X, I can debate you as to why I think all the other alternative naturalistic hypotheses are not plausible -- we haven't gotten to this part because you're so stuck up in trying to show that X is false.

    "I don’t think x is true as there is no way of ever proving it is. I don’t think it’s a total lie but the routes leading up to x is based on assumptions and shaky notions."

    -- For the nth time, follow up your assumptions with argumentation. Expound on why they are "shaky". And yet again you use the word "proving", like I said, you cannot prove anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation, you could at least get this right. And NO, the "routes" leading to X is based on the ancient writings that have been studied and cross-checked extensively, that fit with the other events of that time that have also been studied and fact-checked extensively. Ah, but you'll say "well for me It's shaky!" And we can go on and on with this if that will be the stance that you will forever take.

    "I dislike assumptions and notions, because there is nothing inherently scientific or true about them. "

    -- The theory of relativity is assumed to be true no matter where you are in the universe -- this is an assumption. The Big-bang is an assumption as well since it can never be proven. The theory of evolution, a theory that we both accept, is also an assumption that encompasses a thousand little notions. So these things aren't inherently true? None of them?

    "And i’m not copping out, you deliver x then ask people to refute. That’s not how it works, YOU have to provide the reason why X is true, to claim that it’s because of consensus of historians is bogus, that is rationalization, not a reason to adopt an illogical worldview."

    -- You are copping out from having to come up with an alternative hypothesis that would explain X.

    I deliver X, like all those other people, who have studied X extensively and have come to the conclusion that X is true, had delivered it to anyone else. Do not trivialize X as if it were just a bunch of "shaky" assumptions. Is this all you can do without providing any argumentation for this assertion.

    "to claim that it’s because of consensus of historians is bogus, that is rationalization, not a reason to adopt an illogical worldview."

    -- You talk as if these historians were a bunch of imbeciles. You don't believe in their conclusions, yet provide no reason for your disbelief. Is it because you're smarter than them, and have done more research on the subject? Oh, but it is a reason to adopt a particular worldview, considering that given X, the most plausible explanation is the supernatural one. See, you haven't even begun to try and refute this since you haven't even given X. You only assert that X is false without any evidence. You won't even admit that you think X is false, because if it were true, that would leave you with the burden of having to come up with a more probable explanation for X. Why are you so caught up with X?

    "There is nothing that can prove or disprove X, that is the beauty of it"

    -- There is nothing that can prove or disprove anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. But all the evidence points to the validity of X. We can say that there is strong evidence that X is true. This is certainly the conclusion that forms the consensus among people who have studied the subject extensively for generations.

    "but X alone is nowhere near enough to base your religious views on, so the supernatural part of the equation is hardly a tangent."

    -- You think so? Why? Given X, what alternative hypothesis can you think of? Haven't I been asking this a hundred times now? Please tend to these little orphans of yours.

    "There is not one fact in your reasoning"

    -- It's a fact that there is strong evidence for X. In the absence of stronger evidence that would say otherwise, we can reasonably posit that X is true. It's a fact that the consensus among historians is that the aforementioned is true. It is a matter of opinion that given X, the supernatural hypothesis is the most probable. But it's an opinion that I can argue for using logical reasoning. Are you really this dense?

    "it stands and falls with the claims of people of 2000 years ago"

    -- You really need to read more on how we come to know about our history. If the method for verifying historical claims is flawed, then point out the flaw. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

  105. Reb

    Jesus was a composite. There were many jewish radicals against the Roman control over Israel and several of them were named ‘jesus’. Two of them, Jesus the Nazarite and Jesus Bar Kocba were the most written about. Both led revolts against Rome and were executed.

    Jesus the Nazarite was the one born in the days of Herod and it is a proven fact from historical records that Herod died in the year 4 bc, while we are told that biblical jesus was not born until the zero year of 1 ad.
    See Robert Eisenman's JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS:
    A Higher-Critical Evaluation (Information taken from Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus)

    Jesus Bar Kochba led a revolt (132–136) against the Roman Empire and this was the third and final rebellion by the Jews. Bar Kochba was acclaimed as a Messiah, a heroic figure who could restore Israel.

    Also, google 'jesus the Essene' for yet another jesus revolutionary.

  106. Reb

    For the bible pounders here is what your own famous church fathers made negative comments about the repulsive appearance of jesus based on what Josephus had written in text that the church later destoyed.

    Josephus who describes Jesus as “crooked” (could mean hunchbacked or bent over). He also had written jesus was only 4' 6". The description of Jesus is from an 8th century Archbishop of Crete (Andreas Hierosolymitanus) that quotes Josephus.

    Sounds like a Charles Manson type.

  107. Reb

    Turtullian is one of the most published and admired of the early church fathers who also had access to the now non-existant writings of Josephus and does not argue with the assessment of jesus.

    Tertullian compares the physical appearance of jesus and Isaiah 52:14 (“his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness”) and 53:2 (“he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him”).
    Jesus said in Luke 4:23 to his hometown of Nazareth, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself.’”

    Origen, the most famous of all the early Church Fathers who was also in charge of the Alexandrian school, also did not deny what Celsus had written in 150 A.D. In “Against Celsus” (Chapter 69), Origen quotes Celsus comments about Jesus, “Such a body as yours could not have belonged to a god.”
    Origen replies, “Now in answer to this, we have to say that Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one born of a woman, a human body, and one which was capable of suffering a natural death….having on account of his human body, been tempted in all respects like other men, but no longer as men, with sin as a consequence, but being altogether without sin. For it is distinctly clear to us that “He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; and as one who knew no sin.” God delivered Him up as pure for all who had sinned.”
    Celsus has charged, that Jesus’ body was inadequate for someone who claimed to be a god. In a world that idealized the male body, Celsus’ never disputes that there is something wrong with Jesus’ body. Normally, Origen responds directly to Celsus’ charges, but here he tiptoes around it. He admits the report of Celsus is true.

    Tertullian, cuts to the chase with his remarks on the appearance of jesus in his treatise “Against Marcion”. (Marcion was considered an early heretic for telling truths.)
    Chapter 7, “Prophecy Sets Forth Two Different Conditions of Christ, One Lowly, the Other Majestic”
    Tertullian suggests that Jesus body had “signs of degradation” (98)
    Chapter 9 “On the Flesh of Christ”
    “His body did not reach even to human beauty to say nothing of heavenly glory.” (137)
    Chapter 17, “Prophecies in Isaiah and the Psalms Respecting Christ’s Humiliation”
    Speaking of Jesus’ body he says, “…whatever that poor despised body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be he inglorious, be he ignoble, be he dishonored; for such it was announced that he should be, both in bodily condition and aspect.” Isaiah comes to our help again:… “He has no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but his form was despised, marred above all men”…For although in David’s words, “He is fairer than the children of men” yet it is in that figurative state of grace”…He is in bodily condition “a very worm, and no man…” (235-242)
    This more than suggests that something grotesque with Jesus’ physical appearance. Tertullian’s also does the silent side step and used David’s comment about Jesus’ physical beauty is 'literary' and not literal.

  108. D-K

    This doc lacked rimshots

  109. Reb

    One of the Bible's top compilers and editors, Irenaeus of Lyon, thought there should only be four Gospels to represent the four zones of the world, four winds, four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, and the eagle of John. In a most blatant move only the insane would make, Irenaeus disected the entire book of the Christian church and cut out the other Gospels. Irenaeus also wrote what Christianity did not include, and in this way Christianity became a controlled orthodox faith. A work of Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, helped make the inquisitions the bloody mass murder tools they became. He was a superstitious cruel brutal man.

  110. Reb

    @D-K
    Without the early church fathers and their writings we would have never known about these things and also about the secret gospel of Mark that goes into great perverted detail about jesus and his young male sexual partner in the garden.

    Two other church fathers are writing to each other on how to keep this version of Mark from being known since the church of Capothatians? are openly teaching it! The letter says "even if something is true it is not for everyone" paraphrased. That is why jesus uses the term mysteries and uses parables so often. If you want to know more of this just google The Secret Gospel of Mark and read a real eye-opener. There are countless extra-biblical writings from the church fathers and critics that tell a very different story than what the world has been told but most people are too stupid to research even their own leaders writings. They try to prove the bible by using only the bible. That is like saying the big bad wolf is real because Little Red Riding Hood says so. Go figure.

  111. D-K

    That's what I'm saying.. It is illogical to base an entire worldview on shaky assumptions without backing it up or objectively researching the stuff.

    I personally think they believe something that has been taught at a very early age, and it is engraved in the brain as logical, and every bit of information received from then on is put in context around what was engraved. They see it as fact, and as such will meet anything opposing with great skepticism while not researching reaffiming information AT ALL.

    This would explain why they see it as logical, and have no intention of objectively scrutinizing it. Religion is a self-sustaining instrument that gets passed on by brainwashed parents, that brainwash their kids, that brainwash their kids, etc. etc.

  112. Reb

    @D-K

    Being illogical is what religion is all about. Even Luther made the idiotic statement that to have faith one has to turn off the ability to reason. Thomas Paine said that "religion is an accident of birth" and truer words have never been spoken. It depends solely on one's culture, society and parentage on what they will believe in. Little babies in the hospital nursery already have their titles as christian, muslim, jewish, catholic etc. even though it will be years before they know what it is all about. Few will have the courage and yearning for truth and knowledge. All religions pretty much have the same basic storyline and characters, miracles and fear factors. What better way to keep people dumbed down, obedient and docile that to hold their eternal destiny in some mysterious doctrine only the priests can relate to the little people? It is a mind control tactic old as dirt. Today religion is a trillion dollar a year industry.

    Christians have been led to really believe this nation was founded on christianity when nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the founders were Deist or Unitarians who were repulsed by the insane monstrous OT god. Some thought the NT teachings of jesus were moral but most of those teachings were also to be found in Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Krishna and many others. When the founders used the term God, they were not talking of the biblical gods. The three Abrahamic religions are the leading cause of conflict and war on this planet. None of them see they are being used as pawns and cannon fodder by the elite to cull populations and make fortunes for their 'leaders'. I see that type of person as the religiously insane and I have no use whatsoever for any of them.

  113. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    My answer to your lengthy response is awaiting moderation. However, I think this has gone on long enough, and since you also expressed desire to discontinue with the debate, I guess I should move on and thank you for what I think was a somewhat mildly pleasurable exchange.

  114. D-K

    Agreed, reaching a consensus seems unlikely, and petty arguing seems inevitable. It would be wise for us to part ways here, I thank you for expressing your thoughts at length and bid you adieu.

  115. Nada

    This documentary was pathetic. I only watched the first 2 parts. All it did was talk about the "miracles", then make some really lame attempts at recreating them without any realistic conclusion. Thumbs down.

  116. D-K

    @Nada:

    Agreed.. I found myself waiting from drumrolls and rimshots.

  117. D-K

    @Reb:

    I applaud you, sir.

  118. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    Where did I use just 1 source "to prove any form of truth"?

    So not only are you childish, hypocritical and so imbecilic as to believe every fringe theory, you're apparently also a liar. Good luck with that.

  119. Reb

    @iloveme,me,me

    Just where in my posts did I refer to you?! I used the term fools in a generic manner but fools know who they are so you were the first to yell out. If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one who yelps is the one who gets hit. Getting a little paranoid aren't you?

    If you think I am so "childish, hypocritical and so imbecilic as to believe every fringe theory, you’re apparently also a liar" you sure don't miss anything I post. I don't give a stinking rats rear end what you think but apparently you can't handle anyone with a legitmate argument and proof of those arguments. There are many sources available to anyone that gives the sordid history of your bible and your gods. You are a sad miserable vicious creature and I almost pity you. Eventually you will just nasty away and leave behind a life totally wasted on nonsense.

    Until I address you by name, keep your vulgar mouth shut and one more thing, I don't have to lie like you do to prove anything. The proof is out there free of charge and only fools pass it by. That means YOU.

    D-K, thanks pal but my comments come from almost 20 years of research and I am not even at a good beginning point. The rabbit hole is very deep and the deception is mind boggling. BTW, there are well over 14 thousand contradictions in the newer bible versions compared to the Sinai bible in the British Museum.

  120. Pacha

    is wishing he'd never subscribed to this thread now.

  121. D-K

    @Pacha:

    Why is that?

  122. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    I get it that logical reasoning is alien to you. I was just debating D-K, so the only person you could have been referring to was me. So not only are you childish, hypocritical, imbecilic and a liar, you also love to feign logical reasoning.

    You said you have a legitimate argument? Really? Your "agenda 21" little tidbit is all the evidence anyone needs to put your arguments where they belong. Go back to reading about secret societies and new world orders you gullible douche. Lol.

  123. Pacha

    Because I've had to delete 126 emails from my inbox D-K.
    And there will never be a conclusion to it.
    None of you were alive 2000 years ago so can't prove anything either way.

  124. D-K

    Hahaha.. yeah.. same here..

    I actually subscribed to both this and they "why people laugh at creationists" I had to delete round and about 200 emails.

    it's crazy I tells ya! Crazy!

    Although it's not about proving, because as you said, this is impossible. All we can do is try to logically deduce probability. This is what we're doing, albeit a bit emotionally, but such is the nature of this particular subject. I meant to say, nice pictures on your site, btw.

    Loved the ones on the texts.

  125. Reb

    @Pacha

    You do know you can unsubscribe anytime you choose to any forum. Stop whining and do so if you don't want email alerts. Also, anyone who stares into the eyes of another man and swears he is jesus has more problems than too many emails. The followers of Jim Jones and Charles Manson made the same claims as they blindly followed those loons to their own destruction. Get a backbone.

  126. Pacha

    Of course I know I can unsubscribe Reb but I enjoy reading all your bs.

  127. D-K

    @Reb: In anticipation of your comment:

    I have heard of this Emmet Fields, but never anything really concrete, just namedrops.

    I'll give that link a look, thanks.

  128. Pacha

    Thanks Dk. Only just noticed your last comment.

  129. Achems Razor

    @ Reb:

    Again am glued to these (your) threads, you are number 1 (numero uno). hands down the master!!

  130. Reb

    @Pacha, good there is hope for you. Prove me wrong or prove Jesus existed and the bible is the true word of the true god. You can do neither.

  131. Reb

    Achems, I appreciate that but as always feel free to investigate any claims, even mine. I started collecting the works of the so-called ancient church fathers many years ago and found that was all that was needed along with the older bible versions to disprove them all. It was like hearing the words of criminals thinking they would never be known by others but all things have a way of coming out.

    The Enclyclopedia Britanica prior to 1909 was a great source of religious history until the Vatican bought the rights to it and rewrote the ugly parts. It took me a few years and a great deal of money but I now have the entire set along with an authentic leather bound William Tyndale NT. They were only printed and bound per individual order and pre-paid. Again, it is very different from the new versions such as KJV. Gee, I wonder why? So much for the inerrant unchanging word of god, or I should say word of man.

  132. Pacha

    I don't believe in god or the bible Reb.
    Jesus might have lived. But then again he might not.
    We'll probably never know for sure.

  133. Nada

    @ Reb - Thank you for posting that link! I loved the read. :)

  134. Reb

    @Nada

    Glad you enjoyed it. You can tell by the way it is written he is an honorable man who has dedicated his life to truth and setting the religious captives free. He surely blows the theory of bible morality out of the water. There are just so many wonderful works available and the church can no longer ban/burn books or mass murder those who read them.

    @Pacha

    I believe all any of us ever needed to know was treat everyone fairly and do no harm. That would have solved any problem before one ever started. We could have enjoyed our planet and each other without blowing them both to kingdom come in the names of bloodthirsty gods.

  135. D-K

    At least the decadency of the ancient greek gods (and Norse gods) made them entertaining.. Christian god is just a downer..

  136. Rebelliuss

    @D-K.. i hear that..;o)

  137. Rebelliuss

    Those god's lasted thousands of years, but in the end they died like all things, and so will this god, eventually..;o)

  138. Reb

    I have moved my comments to the forum under religions as I am sure this thread is growing way to long.

  139. anzoni

    Most of the miracles that Jesus perform was for helping poor people, ill people, for the people that was nothing in this moment in this time (very ill, blind, poor,hungry, mad). This is a simbol that we have to fight against all of this injustices, and not condem that people. The people that counts nothing for the rest of the society. If you dont beleave because is a "miracle" then you are not able to see far from this, the symbolism of this deeds. We can not make miracles but can do a lot of things to help.
    The message of Jesus are not so complicated to understand and is very logic and acord to the human nature. He spoke only of five comandaments, the fundamentals, dont kill, dont stole, dont lie, dont commit adultery, take care of your parents. This is very basic to have a positive relations. This is a moral layer, a minimum. And is the first who said that in the history of humand kind. He complete and fullfill the best part of the judish religion. There is no contradiction, only go to the esential of the judaism. (Sorry for my english). He dont ask us to believe that he was God. If you beleave this, ok, no problem. He told "beleave me at least for my deeds". If you read without previous concepts the gospels, is pretty obvious that this cant be a fabricated tale. I dont need a historical proofs of his existence. It this proofs exist ok,better. Who can invent a so complex, realistic,strong, coherent deeds an message? If you can understand or acept only a part, but this can be enough for you (or me). Nobody understands all. Many people can say that they beleave in the resurrection and have a terrible panic to dead. Possibly dont beleave really in the resurrection, and posibly only a few people really beleave in the resurrection (who dont have afraid of the dead really in a situation of panic or extreme pain?) but beleave what they can understand, or at least accept or try to accept or understand. But the most important are your behavior of your every day life with the people that are near you (and me). Jesus said "for your deeds/behavior you will know them". Beleave in Jesus is a process,is a way.

  140. Reb

    @anzoni

    You have stated "He spoke only of five comandaments, the fundamentals, dont kill, dont stole, dont lie, dont commit adultery, take care of your parents."

    Jesus also said to bring those who would not serve him and slay them before him. That is murder.

    Jesus and his disciples stole corn from a field that did not belong to them without asking permission. That is theft. If you don't think twelve hungry men can consume a great amount of corn you need to think again.

    He sent demons into a herd of swine and that resulted in the death of 2000 swine that was someones livihood. He did not ask permission and again that is theft and destruction of personal property. Since jews do not eat pork then we know the swine herd belonged to a non-jew. Racism!

    Jesus told a group of people that some of them standing "here today" will not taste death before they see him coming in his glory. Where is he as all those people are long dead.

    The marriage at Cana was the wedding of Jesus but he still preferred naked young men in the dark garden.

    Failing to care for one's parents resulted in stoning to death. Never a word is mentioned whether a parent is worthy of such care. How many children were raised by horribly abusive parents who don't deserve respect and care?

    You left out the other commandment he upheld and that is "remember the sabbath to keep it holy". Jesus never changed the sabbath to sunday, Paul the apostate did that. Christians follow the teachings of Paul and not jesus.

    Also, Jesus healed jews and rebuked the poor Samaritan woman who was begging him to heal her innocent child. He would not have healed that child if the disciples had not urged him to do so. He said he came only to the lost house of Israel and referred to non-jews as DOGS. Racism.

    He told his disciples he taught in parables so only the chosen few could understand. That is what the secret societies do today. People need to take off the gospel goggles and read what the book says.

  141. Pacha

    Very nicely put Reb

  142. Reb

    @Pacha

    Thanks

  143. jump around

    ... stupid doc

  144. anzoni

    For reb...
    Your arguments are exagerated, out of context, and with a poor fundament. For example. You write that Jesus didnt say anything about parents that dont care of his children. This is absurd. Jesus said who offend/shock one of this childen would be better to atach a stone to his neck and throw himself to the sea...
    -Stolen some grains of wheat. This is absurd. The problem of this situation was if is licit work on saturday or not (even ti pick a little amount of wheat). No one arround acuse of stole a few grains of wheat. That is ridiculous.
    -Change sabath for sunday... Its a big problem for you change one day for other in the week? The comandaments arent not equally important. Jesus mention it in order of importance... Its more important not to kill people than remember the sabath or friday or monday...Thats one of the problema that Jesus combat. Dont pay atention to the big commands, and even justify not respect the most important comandaments, whith litle and much more less norms as wash your hands, dont work (even to heal a sick person) on sabath...
    -The spirits go into the pigs and then they trow themselves into the sea. The spirits where EVIL spirits that were trouw out of sick people, tormented people, and go into the pigs because the pigs is a SYMBOL of the explotation. Who is a pig? The people that take avantage of others etc whithout any moral remorse. The roman imperialism were the pigs that stole all to other little countries (as jews in this case). But this pigs will finish in the bottom of the sea. As the nations who do the same today.
    -Others of your arguments are a pure invention. Dont have any fundament in the gospels. For example say that the marriage at canaa was the jesus marriage Where did you read that? He was only invited. This dont have any base (at least in the gospels).

  145. Reb

    @anzoni

    You are an ignorant imbecile. You don't read the bible either so there is no point in trying to reason with you. Come back when you do your homework. You read what you wanted my post to say or you are just uneducated.

  146. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Reb

    Actually, Anzoni made an argument, to which your reply was "you are an imbecile, so you're wrong"; which was obviously a non-argument and didn't answer anything at all.

    @ Anzoni

    this Reb character is a credulous skeptic; he'll believe anything that is seemingly in opposition to what he doesn't want to believe. He thinks only his interpretation of the bible is accurate, and everyone else's is imbecilic. Nevermind that his interpretation seems ridiculously contrived and will probably get the concurrence of about 2 people in the world, he'll believe it so long as it contends with christian beliefs. And when responded to, he'll just retort "oh your stupid, I've read the bible and you haven't. And my interpretation is more accurate because I'm so smart!"

    Try putting him in his place at risk of getting saturated by the resultant hypocrisy, because he'll say "you have a potty mouth! you're not being a Christian! Christians aren't supposed to be like that! blah blah blah!"

    Anzoni, people like Reb want to be provocative and combative because they yearn for attention.

  147. anzoni

    Thank you IlovemyselfmorethanI,
    Im not an expert, a teologian. Im truly beleave that Jesus was the best man/God that wander in this planet. But only with his teachings are very useful for me, a guide in my life. I try to put in practice. But I think the most important is read the gospels (and the bible in his historic context) not only from a rational point (with the heart too), and medite the impact in you. And even if you dont beleave in God you can say, even as only if you see a kind of filosofy, a guide for your life, a moral ethic, are incredible good and an answer to the great questions of the humand kind about politics, justice, economy, human relations... Many people lost there time in bizantinian discusions, and only talk about the most dificult thinks to understand, if the virgin Mary was virgin or not (for example) and forget basic thinks that everybody can acept or see as very logical, rasonable etc... You can find whe human rights declaration perfectly even better in the gospels, but 2000 years before. But many people prefer to talk about so many people in the history that were cristians and were "bad" people. That doesnt mind that the original ideas are wrong. What do you want to talk: about the things that we agree or the things we desagree. The gospels can be product of the imagination or a mith. Is too much coherent within. No one filosofy of the best filosofers in the history anwser so mach aspects of the human being problems, and no other religion. Read without prejuds (perjucios) based on history, other cristians, so on... can help. But Im not an expert. Im only spoke of what i have lived.

  148. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ anzoni

    Exactly, which is why a bunch of atheists have started a "Atheists for Jesus" movement, which are a bunch of atheists who believe Jesus was a very moral philosopher -- the complete opposite of what this other atheist imbecile preaches. Amusingly, Richard Dawkins supports this "Atheists for Jesus" group.

  149. Ben

    For Reb

    I have been following your comments Reb, and i have come to a conclusion that you lack the capacity to articulate issues maturely.Most of your arguements,defy common-sense and logic and i wonder whether you can ably express yourself well given a debate session that requires academic reasoning. I have even begun doubting your level of education considering what is coming out of your head.It is all Redundant verbosity that is all muddled up with blasphemy,abusive language and generally childish. How old are you by the way? Look at the way reasonable people like Anzoni and "ilovemy self.... and others are reacting to your comments.
    You took it to another lever when you called Jesus a thief not to mention your blasphemous comments about Him and the Cana Wedding. To be honest with you, your knowledge of the Bible is not even up 1%.You may have read it as an ordinary book just like you have read literature books but you donot even have the slighest knowledge of it. The contents,there in,are spiritual but the approach according to your interpretation is carnal.

    This is my advise to you. JUST NOW--Repent and confess your filthness to Jesus. Tell Him you are Sinner and that you need Him ALONE to forgive you your wretchedness.Yes ,you are a wretch.You have blasphemed against Him and yet you donot know by which powers he was born,lived ,died and rose again BUT yet, you want to assume you know it all.After Repenting and deciding never to make baseless comments ,then He will forgive you and become His child.
    The consequence of not taking heed to my advise will be disastrous to you because i can guarantee that the moment you breath your last here on earth and your body drop down, without HIM(Jesus) you will regret for the rest of your life forever and ever and ever.Him alone holds the KEYS to Eternal Life.
    I have made my rebuke and comments in love and care you you Reb.

  150. Pacha

    LOL

  151. Joe_nyc

    "JUST NOW–Repent and confess your filthness to Jesus.......in love and care you you Reb"

    What the hell was that?

  152. Charles B.

    That's called a grammar error, Joe! Or two. But I agree with Ben's assessment of REB 100%

    How is your boy nowadays? Mine is so hard to handle at times but so cute too. He's rough with his baby sister and wanted me to "spank" mommy after she gave him a bath yesterday, but he's still the light of my life. LOL! I told him, "Later." ;-)

  153. Achems Razor

    @ Charles B:

    Oh, Oh, you set yourself up for retribution Charles, from @ Reb, as in "lex talionis" or the older code of "Hammurabi",

    As you know, the pen is mightier than the sword!

  154. anzoni

    Im completely acord with Ben. Im not an atheist for Jesus. But I try to put me in the place of people that dont beleave and try to be as much tolerant or flexible as I can. Even if you dont beleave in the miracles, resurrection, the virginity o Mery or that Jesus was God or not, etc... I think the message is even very good, very advanced an usefull. Even if you see Jesus only as a human being. But the people that dont beleave often get to this controversial points. I think that the things that I dont understand must be true too, because the things that I understand are the best words I ever heard or read in my life. No one speak so clearly, so wisely about this life, the human being problems (the dead, sufering, war, poverty,the meaning of our lives, etc). Thanks Ben.

  155. Reb

    @Ben,Charles and Iloveme,me,me

    Excuse me while I hurl! You can't proof the existence of a person who is only a composite of many characters.

    The hateful judgmental works of these so-called 'godly' minions show them for what they are and what they follow. They huff and puff at those who choose to use reason and common sense. They spout false words of love and compassion until you fail to pay them homage, then the true inner demon come to light.

    You poor naifs are surely a lost and hopeless bunch of superstitious nitwits. Put your fangs back in and go 'preach' your hateful gods to someone who cares. I wouldn't wipe my feet on either of them.

    THOMAS PAINE:
    "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all....Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."

  156. D-K

    Ben said: "You have blasphemed against Him and yet you donot know by which powers he was born,lived ,died and rose again BUT yet, you want to assume you know it all"

    Well, to be fair, neither do you. You read it in a book (or multiple books) and chose to believe what said book said. You assume to know the supposed jesus/god's properties and criteria for judgement, as evident by your following statement:

    "After Repenting and deciding never to make baseless comments ,then He will forgive you and become His child.
    The consequence of not taking heed to my advise will be disastrous to you because i can guarantee that the moment you breath your last here on earth and your body drop down, without HIM(Jesus) you will regret for the rest of your life forever and ever and ever"

    Now, you know that when you are handing out guarantees like that, you're basically passing final judgement on a person, which hardly seems like your place to do.

    So when you say: "I have made my rebuke and comments in love and care you you Reb"

    You seem to prove his point that refusing to pay homage to your faith, leads to judgement and ridicule, and not just by your god, either.

  157. Charles B.

    OK. Sorry Reb. If ya dish it out, ya gotta be willing to take a bit of guff as well. Let's not cyber-maul each other. I apologize. Sorta. Razor scared me with “lex talionis” or the older code of “Hammurabi” stuff! I don't have the slightest idea what those are, but they sound unpleasant and perhaps painful (cyber or otherwise)! :-) Better apologize fast first!

  158. JCWOLF

    Its easier on ones self esteem to make a loophole in why its so, than to face up to being duped into a lie.

  159. JCWOLF

    Those last words are important in the self deception that must be initiated:
    "Worlds most believers are christian."

    Most of the world believes in non-christian ideas.

    Let alone the biggest set of "Believers" point out how they believe over what the other may or may not.

    If it was even true that 66.6% of the world is christian, so what. One person upheld what he seen thru the eyepiece of a telescope once, and the organization did not apologize till centuries after their persecution of the man!

    These beliefs have a long history of self correcting what is believed to be the infallible truth.

  160. Reb

    @JCWOLF

    Right, and now the stupid Pope is saying it is ok to believe in extra-terrestrials and they are also our brothers. He is also saying you don't have to accept Jesus to belong to the church!!!! Not so long ago you would have been burnt at the stake or tortured to death for even suggesting such a thing. Now the Vatican is beginning to teach what the Nag Hammani scrolls present and they denounced them vehemently since they were unearthed in 1945. Those scrolls plainly teach that the OT god was an imposter who duped the OT prophets and Jesus was an ascended master of the Egyptian mystery school. That is why the christian bible has Jesus stating the parables are not for the masses and he also refers to the mysteries. The Roman Catholic Church is the same church that is the mother of all so-called christian organizations. The mother of whores if you will.

  161. Hardy

    Seriously, all this talk about 'eternal life'?

    You should really watch part 19 of this doc. Which sentient being WANTS to live forever?! It's mind-boggling that people actually DESIRE to persist for all eternity. And honestly, either heaven or hell would get as boring as a f*cking 10-hour train ride after a few million years.

    I can only speak for myself, but living eternally would really suck balls. If god is reading this, please delete my soul after I die - you'd do me a huge favor.

  162. Hardy

    Sorry, mixed up docs. I meant part 19 of the 'Why people laugh at Creationists' doc.

  163. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    Buddy, I sure wouldn't want to go back to our previous debate. But I think you will be interested in Bart Ehrman's work on the historicity of Jesus. In fact I know you will, because Bart use to be a Christian and lost his faith when studying the historicity of Jesus. His conclusion was that there was so much lost in translation that it is impossible to say that the writings we have of Jesus right now are reliable. Seriously there's no catch here!

    Bart is an eminent bible scholar. But linking this to our previous debate, Bart agrees that X is historically established. He agrees that there is no reason to doubt X. Only he argues that the resurrection is so improbable, that it cannot be argued it is the most probable hypothesis given X. Like I said, people come to their own conclusions, but in my opinion, on that statement of Bart, it shows that he is biased against the supernatural explanation (he says it is improbable because it is supernatural) -- a point I was making in our short debate.

    My refutation of Bart is that, he admitted that although many of the writings have been lost in translation(or downrightly have been tampered with), almost 98% of the writings that we have are accurate when compared to original texts --which I think is not a bad percentage to establish the reliability of what's written about Jesus.

    Again, I'm not a historian. so I'm sure Bart has a very good answer for such a refutation. I just mentioned this, so that you'll know I wasn't just asserting X -- it's pretty much established. Even so, anyone can formulate their own hypotheses, just like Bart did.

  164. D-K

    @Ilovemnyself

    First off: I'm not your buddy, friend. (sp ref)

    Secondly: You're accusing a former christian of being biased AGAINST a supernatural explanation? That's a bit curious don't you think? I'll have a gander at this Ehrman and his findings, though.

    Without delving back into X's accuracy/probability, you keep repeating how the supernatural is the most probable conclusion. Now, bear with me here, would you agree with african tribes when they will tell you that lightning is a supernatural manifestation? That rain is god crying? Or will you try to explain to them the water-cycle, and the properties of the atmosphere that result in both phenomena?

    My hypothesis is that people who lack logical reasoning or education in certain aspects, see truth in numbers and conform to popular opinion. Again, truth does not lie in numbers, and X is no foundation for a beliefsystem. A supernatural entity is, but as I said, X does not necessarily lead to a supernatural explanation. Assuming that it is the most probable, is prepostorous when you take into account that there have been zero credible recordings of supernatural phenomena.

    Something (supernatural) can not be "most probable" when that thing's existance has not been proven. Witness testamony counts for nothing.

    Also, why would I be interested in Bart Ehrman's work? Is it because he is an ex-religee? You think I'll take his word more seriously than yours simply because he claims he's closer to my side of the argument than yours?

    Also, explain this:

    "His conclusion was that there was so much lost in translation that it is impossible to say that the writings we have of Jesus right now are reliable"

    "almost 98% of the writings that we have are accurate when compared to original texts"

    Does that mean that he questions the 98% we have? Does it mean that he refers to 2% with "so much was lost"? Or does the man just contradicts himself?

  165. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    "First off: I’m not your buddy, friend. (sp ref)"

    -- O.K.

    "Secondly: You’re accusing a former christian of being biased AGAINST a supernatural explanation? That’s a bit curious don’t you think? I’ll have a gander at this Ehrman and his findings, though."

    -- This is my opinion, yes. It was based on his interview where he says that a 'resurrection' is so improbable that it cannot be the most plausible. From that, it is obviously not difficult to infer that he is biased against the supernatural hypothesis, since his argument is that it's "improbable" because it is supernatural.

    "Without delving back into X’s accuracy/probability, you keep repeating how the supernatural is the most probable conclusion. Now, bear with me here..."

    -- I didn't repeat it at my last post. I said Bart is biased against the supernatural explanation, an inference which I explained on the paragraph above.

    "
    My hypothesis is that people who lack logical reasoning or education in certain aspects, see truth in numbers and conform to popular opinion. Again, truth does not lie in numbers, and X is no foundation......

    Something (supernatural) can not be “most probable” when that thing’s existance has not been proven. Witness...

    Something (supernatural) can not be “most probable” when that thing’s existance has not been proven...."

    -- These paragraphs here have absolutely nothing to do with what I've just said, so I'll overlook them for now.

    "Also, why would I be interested in Bart Ehrman’s work? Is it because he is an ex-religee? You think I’ll take his word more seriously than yours simply because he claims he’s closer to my side of the argument than yours?"

    --Well, Yes actually. And also because he is one of the leading Bible scholars of our time. My point was simply to show what I was arguing earlier: X is accepted by most historians, because the evidence for X is compelling.

    Your previous argument, wherein you quoted different sites, was that many secular historians do not accept the gospels as reliably showing the historical Jesus. I was simply pointing out that even so, X is, for the most part, accepted to be true, as is the case with Bart.

    "Does that mean that he questions the 98% we have? Does it mean that he refers to 2% with “so much was lost”? Or does the man just contradicts himself?"

    -- All the unreliable stuff he was able to account for amount to not more than 2% of the writings in the new testament. He admitted this in an interview. He's a great debater and has debated multiple times on the reliability of the gospels --arguing they were unreliable, ofcourse. Since he isn't here to defend himself, and I have no doubt that he has a great answer for this, i won't really harp on this.

  166. someguy

    Wow, I am really impressed by the length of the debate about "The miracles of Jesus" and the passion displayed by "both sides"..., which is quite unnerving!
    We 're ready to go to war against each other for our selfish beliefs, but this creates artificial, unnecessary problems.

    Real problems like natural disasters, earthquakes, fires, diseases, even the "far fetched" meteor impact. Real problems like kids used as expendable assets in "3rd world" countries
    for artificially created conflicts.

    You 'll see long debates about how wrong or how right it is to spend for example 1 billion of taxpayers money on research, while at the same time untold billions are spent on
    newly devised crusades.

    You 'll see people flaming about evolution/creationism, while at the same time there are huge gaps in the educational system, and little or nothing is known about the science or the religion supported.

    You 'll see whole countries go bankrupt for owning money to individuals. How can millions of people owe to a single person or for that matter to a small group of people? That's paranoia.

    You 'll see people speaking about new clean technologies and at the same time they sell these technologies at such a price that are unattainable. They, too much worry about overheating the planet or polluting the air but they hesitate to convert to efficient public transportation means.

    You ll see people fighting over political systems most notably capitalism/communism that do not realize it's practically irrelevant what the political system is if it's not implemented appropriately.

    You 'll see rich people that long ago solved any material need being so overwhelmed about how they will solve the problem of their everlasting expansion, like it so important
    to expand endlessly. You 'll see them speak like its the end of the world if they "earn" less money this year than the past year, because for some obscure reason they "must" always make more money.

    You 'll see people feeling so empty inside that they have to resort to being members of a certain ideology or philosophical system to justify their pathetic existence.
    Not only that, they want to impose "their beliefs" to other people to get more sick satisfaction.

    And an endless circle of unnecessary and ridiculous problems begins!

    SO DID JESUS ACTUALLY PERFORMED ALL THOSE MIRACLES? Noone can be 100% sure? Is it that important? Definitely not!

    DID JESUS EXIST OR ALLAH OR CRISHNA? Please we have more important problems to think about.

  167. Achems Razor

    @ someguy:

    Right on! Well said!

  168. Pacha

    Spelling mistakes and bad grammar really bother me.

  169. Ben

    Someguy,

    below are your famous questions and answers that you provided with ease!! Wow!! So according to you, if anything does not pass your test of proof,then it is rendered false.Right? Do you believe there are certain things that are beyond proof? Jesus is one of such things

    "SO DID JESUS ACTUALLY PERFORMED ALL THOSE MIRACLES? Noone can be 100% sure? Is it that important? Definitely not"!

    "DID JESUS EXIST OR ALLAH OR CRISHNA? Please we have more important problems to think about".

    'someguy",as you call yourself, your simple mind cannot stand the test of prooving Jesus' existance. He is beyond proof.Trying to demand proof for Jesus' existance and whether the miracles He performed are true with your brain,can be likened to someguy wanting to store a 4GB information on a 2GB storage device. It is disturbing to note that you can state without shame that people should be bothered with other problems other than being bothered with Jesus. Man....let me ask you ! What if ALL that is written and said about Jesus turns out to be true.What will you do then? Ofcourse if it turns out to be a lie, i have nothing to lose;but you will lose it ALL and spend eternity without God forever.

    You may say that no one is sure about Jesus ,but remember you are making this assertion,2010 years after Jesus walked on our planet.Would you make such a statement if you lived during the era of Peter,Matthew,and the rest of His disciples who SAW Him physically? The next statement will most likely blow your mind.Here it is.

    ALL LIFE's existance eternally after leaving this earth will depend on whether one had a persoanl relationship with JESUS.Be it Mohammed,Confucous, and every other person that has heard about Him but rejected Him. Those who lived before Jesus like the Buddha, will have their own judgement by God's wisdom.He know how He will deal with them.Jesus alone holds the keys to eternal life as he clearly stated in John 11:25,
    25 Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life.[a] Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying".

    None of the like of Mohammed or any other so called famous people like the Buddha ever made such a claim. Then this was the real turning point that shocked all those who heard Him,

    John 14:6 Jesus told him,
    “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me". If Jesus stated like wise,then where do all those who die without going through Him GO??? This will send a chill over your body to think about all those who head to eternity (permanently seperated from their maker )simply because they REFUSED the one who made them. Those who can to Jesus coem by faith not by proof.
    In a nutshell, someguy, Jesus is more than any problem you may want us think about.Considering the Life's package He offered,He is worthy of all Praise and Honour and Power and Glory. There is None like Him and never will there be another.He is the 1st & the Last. Jesus was/God the Creator.

    John 1:10 He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. 12 But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. Jesus is The beginning and the end. Then to the shock of many (you inclusive) He will return (someday) to earth with Great Power and you will Worship Him as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.You will bow down to worship Him in Ewe and wonder just like anybody else,Muslims,Buddhists,Shintoists,Hinduists, All Atheists and every so -called pagan.

    Philippians 2:9-11 (New Living Translation)
    9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
    and gave him the name above all other names,
    10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

  170. Achems Razor

    @ Ben:

    Since you mentioned "to the shock of many" I am one of the many.
    You should not deride other people by saying that they have "simple minds" when you cannot even put together proper sentence structure,
    and have major spelling errors.

    There is no such person as Jesus in the Bible. The Bible, Bibles, that themselves are man made fairy tails. To beat all fairy tails, "the greatest story ever told", that is all it is, "A Story"

    You are a typical religee, with all your raving and ranting, about something that never even existed!

  171. Achems Razor

    Correction: Tales, not tails.

  172. Ben

    @ razor

    The subject matter in here is not how best one can make proper sentence structures or even how best one can write good english with no mistakes. You are simply trying to have issues with me and yet we are not on the same equal measurement when it comes to debating. Iam not English -speaking person, so stop childish reasoning. Look at how you wrote,"and have major spelling errors". Do you know what the word "major" mean or you are just blowing a trumpet for people to get attracted to your music?Did you real pass with a good grade in School or it was simply "a pass". You are far below standard when it comes to articulating issues with a backing of knowledge and reason. I bet you cannot go far in stretching this topic to as big as an A4 paper size. You lack words to back your Atheistic mind-set and that is why you have biased issues on people who can back-up their statements. I can even guess your level of eduaction by what you are writing.Using "hard" terminologies in here will not save you from the low rating most commentators have about you .

    This what you need to do; just like me,admit that your "simple mind" cannot match with the mind of Jesus. He is Supreme!!!You cannot even solve the simplest puzzle of all life's issues concerning why you are here,where you are going after here, and what exactly will happen to you after you breath your last from here. =====here----means.....Earth.
    There you are poised with silence as if your mind has gone on recess. Go back to school or wait until you grow up then we can talk.

    Psalm 14.1 offers a true and accurate description of atheists: "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

  173. Ben

    @ Razor-

    -when you make a mistake in spelling ,dont go back to correct it. We are not on "showbiz" here. By the way....would you call that a "major" mistake or a "monor" one.? Do you see how you are being pushed in a corner by your very own words? I pray you get a teach-able spirit just like iam ready to be corrected on where you read mistakes on my commentary. But above all believe in Jesus to save you frm the wrath to come! You will not like it at that moment when you begin punicking when death approaches.

  174. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ someguy

    I'm actually not ready to go to war with anyone on my beliefs. This whole thing isn't as bad as it seems =)

  175. Hardy

    Three words @Ben:

    W T F?

    @Everybody else (to whom it may concern):

    Discussions with a person such as this Ben fellow are as enjoyable or intellectually challenging as banging your head against the wall. There are no arguments, no reasoning, no logic. Replace the posts with:

    Person B(en): 'I like cheese'
    Person X: 'I don't like cheese'

    and you have the same result.

    We need more political or social discussions here. The 'god-topic' is getting utterly boring.

  176. Achems Razor

    @ Ben:

    We "ARE" on showbiz here, to date, there are 9601 subscribers on TDF. that watch these doc's, and read these comments.
    Second language or not, get a spelling checker, it is free!

    Will not waste any more time with you, am done with you!

  177. jari

    It's funny because god isn't detectable with any of our 5 senses. If he were, we wouldn't go into any kind of debate about his existence or miracles. It would be that simple.

    Unfortunately he opts to be elusive and inconsistent. One can live a happy life without him. That means he is trivial while you live on earth. Nobody knows his relevance in the after-life because nobody came back from the dead to tell us about their experience.

    Why does the creator of all things look so artificial?

    I especially took interest in book of Revelation while I was a kid. My question was... what's with the beasts and fire and sword and the mumbo jumbo? Why can't god just let everybody into heaven and we live happily ever after? Because he can't? But he is omnipotent! Because he works in mysterious ways? But why does the right way have to be so mysterious?? God, grant us your way of thinking otherwise don't judge us because we are using the brain you donned us with in the first place! It is not fair.

    I've heard someone say that the writer of Revelations had ingested psychedelic mushrooms infamous on the island he was on. That explains everything. I have no proof for it but really, when you deal with god, who needs a proof?

  178. BJ

    Answer these questions:

    Do we humans have a similar make up to a cow? e.g. heart, eyes, blood, teeth etc...

    Do we as humans and cows both go to sleep and dream?

    Is it possible? just possible that evolution exists and that humans and cows derived from different forms?

    Then isn't it possible that both a human and a cow imagine some form of creator? Or is their(cows) language and intellect as "well" evolved as humans? Therefore not one cow being able to convey their thought of a God to another cow, thus private cow thoughts stay private as they can not vocalize their opinions well enough.

    Does this sound far fetched?

    If so then what the hell is a God?

  179. D-K

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI

    "– This is my opinion, yes. It was based on his interview where he says that a ‘resurrection’ is so improbable that it cannot be the most plausible. From that, it is obviously not difficult to infer that he is biased against the supernatural hypothesis, since his argument is that it’s “improbable” because it is supernatural"

    Biologically, logically and factually, it is very, VERY inprobable to spontaneously resurrect after 3 days (and not be a vegetable). The fact that you see an illogicality as most probable doesn't exactly score points for you in the logic department.

    "I was simply pointing out that even so, X is, for the most part, accepted to be true, as is the case with Bart"

    So we've gotten to potentially partially untrue, when you begun assuming x was fact. There may yet be hope for you.

    "– These paragraphs here have absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve just said, so I’ll overlook them for now"

    Hardly, you recommended Erhman because he is an ex-religee and in the same breath you dismiss him for not being objective. This entire discussion has been about the value of x and you imposing that everyone non-religious is biased against the supernatural. Instead of seeing them as logical conclusions, you dismiss them as delusional. (you did not say delusional, but it's between the lines, don't point it out)

    You're a standard issue Christian, you hold your beliefs so firmly that anyone else is considered illogical (same as godisawesome) and because the supernatural supports your belief, you cannot question it. If you question the supernatural (ergo, you find the cohones to be objective) you'll find just how illogical "faith" is.

    Forgive the lateness of my reply.

  180. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    "Biologically, logically and factually, it is very, VERY inprobable to spontaneously resurrect after 3 days (and not be a vegetable). The fact that you see an illogicality as most probable doesn’t exactly score points for you in the logic department."

    -- The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It becomes illogical for you, because you already subscribe to a particular worldview --God does not exist. Assume for a minute that God exists, and then grant X -- the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead becomes the most plausible. So again, it is a bias against a supernatural explanation that leads people to doubt the validity of X. Supposing, we now have evidence that shows that there was a certain drug that was employed to get people to hallucinate appearances of Jesus, would you still doubt X, despite most of the evidence pointing to the truth of X? I think not.

    "So we’ve gotten to potentially partially untrue, when you begun assuming x was fact. There may yet be hope for you."

    -- I do assume X is fact, just like I assume it is a fact that Socrates was a man that lived, neither can be proven and therefore cannot be called "fact" in the strictest sense of the word, but the evidence is strong that both cases are true. I said "for the most part" because not all historians accept X to be true. Let's not make arguments for the sake of making arguments.

    "Hardly, you recommended Erhman because he is an ex-religee and in the same breath you dismiss him for not being objective. This entire discussion has been about the value of x and you imposing that everyone non-religious is biased against the supernatural. Instead of seeing them as logical conclusions, you dismiss them as delusional. (you did not say delusional, but it’s between the lines, don’t point it out)"

    --You seem to be taking the logic of that particular statement way beyond where I intended to take it. I said it had nothing to do with what I JUST said. I didn't have any intention of going back to our previous debate. Your response seemed to be taking us there, yet again. And so I chose to overlook it, because it had nothing to do with that post. Let's not be contentious for the sake of being contentious.

    "You’re a standard issue Christian, you hold your beliefs so firmly that anyone else is considered illogical (same as godisawesome) and because the supernatural supports your belief, you cannot question it. If you question the supernatural (ergo, you find the cohones to be objective) you’ll find just how illogical “faith” is."

    -- You're a standard issue atheist, you hold your beliefs so firmly that anyone else is considered illogical (same as Reb) and because the supernatural doesn't support your belief, you question it. Blah Blah Blah.

  181. Epicurus

    LOL yes, to accept that Jesus rose from the dead ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is assume an all knowing all powerful being exists and has always existed and has vested interest in the affairs of humans.

    so all one must do to accept your argument is to first....accept your argument....????

    you have a bias TOWARDS the supernatural with absolutely no empirical objective evidence to do so other than you have been taught to. a bias away from the supernatural is a bias towards reality....to even admit what you are admitting is making my head hurt.

    the implications of your assumptions of Socrates cannot be compared to any deity. you are comparing apples and oranges. also there is much much much much more evidence for Socrates than for ANY supernatural being.

    could you point to one academic historian who has made a case against the existence of Socrates?

    "You’re a standard issue atheist, you hold your beliefs so firmly that anyone else is considered illogical (same as Reb) and because the supernatural doesn’t support your belief, you question it. Blah Blah Blah."

    possibly the most nonsensical silly statement ever made on this website.

    what do you mean because the supernatural doesn't support his belief? you mean the supernatural has yet to be shown so there is no reason to just accept it. and WHY would anyone accept YOUR supernatural happenings? why do you deny other peoples faiths and religions.

    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

  182. D-K

    " The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It becomes illogical for you, because you already subscribe to a particular worldview –God does not exist"

    I never claimed god does not exist, nor have I claimed to subscribe to some particular worldview containing that message. False, unsubstantiated claim based on your baseless assumption.

    "Assume for a minute that God exists, and then grant X — the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead becomes the most plausible"

    ...Assume for a minute that god exists? You're asking someone with a scientific/factual mindset to make an assumption, in term for him to make the inprobable seem (most) probable? Let's not be silly for the sake of being silly.

    "the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead becomes the most plausible. So again, it is a bias against a supernatural explanation that leads people to doubt the validity of X"

    Also, you said that X has nothing to do with the supernatural, and now you're stating that the supernatural is cause to X? You contradict yourself and invalidate your stance.

    "–You seem to be taking the logic of that particular statement way beyond where I intended to take it"

    Logic does not follow intent, actual logic is self-evident, imposed/conditioned religious logic is full of holes and contradictions.

    "You’re a standard issue atheist, you hold your beliefs so firmly that anyone else is considered illogical (same as Reb) and because the supernatural doesn’t support your belief, you question it. Blah Blah Blah"

    Well, I already mentioned i'm not an atheist, but i'd add onto that that I don't have any beliefs. I don't BELIEVE. That is what seperates us two, and that is why you cannot question my logic (at this point).. you assume to know things, when they are in fact rough guesses of things that may be, because they seem to be.

    Your BELIEF is rooted in an assumption, I'll quote, for convenience: "God does not exist. Assume for a minute that God exists, and then grant X" yeah... science doesn't work like that. We don't plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory, then go on to claim it as fact or law. No. You work your way up to the conclusion, not back from it, not if you aim to maintain scientific integrity.

    Since you're logic is rooted in belief, which is inherently irrational, you are in no position to judge logic. ESPECIALLY not scientific logic. You do yourself and your god a disservice by trying to validate him in scientific and logical terms. You are of weak faith, and of weak scientific integreity, you don't really fit in anywhere. Like Charles B would say; "you're not a true christian"

  183. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Epicurus

    Please read my previous posts. You're skipping a lot of steps, and I don't have time to go back and argue everything again.

  184. D-K

    Epi always beats me to the punch...

    Crafty rapscallian...

  185. Epicurus

    I have read your previous posts and in no way do they touch on anything i said to you in my last post.

    and im sorry D-K just killing time before work...

    sometimes i just cant let certain things go without addressing them even though i know someone more diplomatic (you) will be responding.

  186. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    Are you playing with words here?

    "I never claimed god does not exist, nor have I claimed to subscribe to some particular worldview containing that message. False, unsubstantiated claim based on your baseless assumption."

    yet here you say:

    "Well, I already mentioned i’m not an atheist, but i’d add onto that that I don’t have any beliefs. I don’t BELIEVE."

    -- an atheist is someone who does not BELIEVE God exists. You say you "don't BELIEVE", therefore you don't believe that God exists (or are you making a general claim that you don't believe in anything? If so, then how is that possible?), yet you claim you're not an atheist?

    From this, I think it's pretty clear that I don't have to formulate counter arguments to your subsequent retorts, until you clarify yourself and show how you are not being dishonest.

  187. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Epicurus

    No you didn't. If you did, then I have to assume you scarcely understood them, as evidenced by this statement of yours:

    "the implications of your assumptions of Socrates cannot be compared to any deity. you are comparing apples and oranges. also there is much much much much more evidence for Socrates than for ANY supernatural being."

    I'm not comparing the existence of Socrates to the existence of any Deity. If you read my previous posts, Ive been arguing that: We know about the life of Socrates (or any ancient historical figure for that matter) by studying the writings about him. We know X by studying the writings about it.

  188. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @D-K

    This statement is just begging to be pointed out.

    "science doesn’t work like that. We don’t plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory, then go on to claim it as fact or law. No. You work your way up to the conclusion, not back from it, not if you aim to maintain scientific integrity."

    -- Science does plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory (Dark energy, Dark matter). They won't however claim it as fact, as they do with most of their findings, because the word fact used in the strictest sense would mean that it is indisputable. And scientists will posit assumptions and work their way "back from it" if necessary. Although you clearly like to talk as if you do, it certainly doesn't seem like you know much about how science works.

  189. D-K

    @Epi:

    Hey man, by all means join in. It's always nice to have multiple perspectives to add to the discussion. You always seem to be well-educated on the matters you respond to, and you provide in-depth links.

    By all means, stick around.

  190. D-K

    @Ilovemyself:

    "an atheist is someone who does not BELIEVE God exists"

    Not exactly. And atheist is someone who BELIEVES that god DOES NOT exist (which is still a belief), rather than not believing that a god exists (see the difference?). I have professed no religious persuasion, nor have I professed atheism. You're readiness to assume such matters will lead you astray from the discussion to focus on the person behind the statement, when you should be focussing on the merit of the statement itself. You seem to struggle enough with that as is, I'd think you'd better leave my personality out of it, I'm a terribly complicated person

    "From this, I think it’s pretty clear that I don’t have to formulate counter arguments to your subsequent retorts, until you clarify yourself and show how you are not being dishonest"

    Rationalize all you will, when "claims sans logic" come flying my way, i'll retort with proper reasoning conveying logic and objectivity. If you choose to see intent behind my words, than it is your choice and right to do so, this is beyond my control.

    Believing is to judge data to be accurate without proper/emperical proof or compelling evidence. (although compelling is subjective, obviously) Belief makes facts out of assumptions, I do not make facts out of assumptions. I have said before; I concern myself with factual and logical data.

    I don't believe there is a god, I also don't believe there is no god. There is more to the equation than belief, disbelief and apathy, you know...

    --

    As for your last comment, not your brightest moment;

    I said: "We don’t plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory, then go on to CLAIM IT AS FACT or law"

    You then said: "Science does plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory (Dark energy, Dark matter). They won’t however claim it as fact, as they do with most of their findings, because the word fact used in the strictest sense would mean that it is indisputable"

    Not entirely.

    In a theory, when some links are missing, scientist hypothezise(assume) on what may be missing, insert the mechanic and then test it (methametically, in theoretical science). If it holds up, it gets incorporated in the THEORY. Science does not dub anything fact if it isn't fact.

    Dark energy and matter aren't facts. They are terms spawned from a hypothesis to explain certain holes in the BB theory. Again, the key word is THEORY. Scientists will, on some occasions, work back from a conclusion, BUT WILL NEVER PASS IT OF AS FACT IF IT'S NOT A FACT.

    I'm not talking rocketscience here, if you just read the entire sentences, without looking for openings to make me look like a dumb*ss, you'll understand that i'm quite reasonable and that everything I have said up until now has made perfect sense.

  191. jari

    I wanna comment on what IlovemyselfmorethanI said.
    "The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It becomes illogical for you, because you already subscribe to a particular worldview –God does not exist. Assume for a minute that God exists, and then grant X — the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead becomes the most plausible. So again, it is a bias against a supernatural explanation that leads people to doubt the validity of X."

    How can one accept supernatural phenomenon by first assuming that a supernatural being exists? This is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. Not only does it crumble on itself, it also shows that you are a big hypocrite. You use logical reasoning to discredit other gods, but you want illogical reasoning to credit yours.

  192. Epicurus

    again, comparing the writings we have on socrates to that which we have on god is not possible.

    and like i keep saying, why not employ the same standard of evidence for other religions and gods as you do this particular one?

    by studying the OT and NT one cannot conclude that the stories within are factual especially when making supernatural claims. not unless (like you have asked people to do) already assume magical things happen and gods exist. not logical.

  193. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @D-K

    "Not exactly. And atheist is someone who BELIEVES that god DOES NOT exist"

    -- Apart from syntax, please tell me the difference between these two statements:

    1. I BELIEVE God does not exist. And, 2. I don't believe God exists.

    you say:

    "I have professed no religious persuasion, nor have I professed atheism."

    -- So you "don't believe there is a God" yet you are not an atheist? You justify this claim by saying that while you "don't believe there is a God" you also "don't believe there is no God" and then say it's something too deep and mysterious and so, while being blatantly contradictory, is still possible. See, this doesn't explain anything. I'm sorry but it looks like a very feeble attempt at worming out of an illogical hole you've just dug and put yourself in. I obviously cannot debate someone who doesn't even know what he does or doesn't believe.

    As for the last part of your comment, which wasn't your brightest:

    "In a theory, when some links are missing, scientist hypothezise(assume) on what may be missing, insert the mechanic and then test it (methametically, in theoretical science). If it holds up, it gets incorporated in the THEORY."

    -- Ok, so you're saying that “Science does plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory", but would add that they wouldn't claim it as "FACT OR LAW".

    How was that different from my initial statement?:

    “Science does plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory (Dark energy, Dark matter). They won’t however claim it as fact, as they do with most of their findings, because the word fact used in the strictest sense would mean that it is indisputable”

    Didn't you just paraphrase what I said and then claim that it's not the same thing?

    "Dark energy and matter aren’t facts. They are terms spawned from a hypothesis to explain certain holes in the BB theory. Again, the key word is THEORY.

    -- I never said they were facts, stop making it seem like I did. I said they were assumptions used to “plug holes" "because they neatly wrap up a theory".

    "Scientists will, on some occasions, work back from a conclusion, BUT WILL NEVER PASS IT OF AS FACT IF IT’S NOT A FACT."

    -- Huh?? I thought you said:

    "No. You work your way up to the conclusion, not back from it, not if you aim to maintain scientific integrity.”

    What the... more dishonesty?

    Like I said: Although you clearly like to talk as if you do, it certainly doesn’t seem like you know much about how science works."Theory" used in the context of science is the closest thing to the word "fact". Science will deliberately not use the word "fact" because that would misleadingly imply that the notion can be proven to a mathematical certainty. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation. Stop being generous to yourself by talking as if they are galactically different ideas.

  194. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Epicurus

    Again, I wasn't comparing the evidence we have for Socrates to the evidence we have for God. I was saying that the method for verifying the historicity of socrates or any ancient figure is the same method used for verifying the historicity of X (X is not God)

    You haven't followed my posts, I'm sorry, but I cannot explain them again, as it will be tedious. You can start another line of questioning where I wouldn't have to be repeating myself, if you want.

  195. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Jari

    "How can one accept supernatural phenomenon by first assuming that a supernatural being exists? This is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. Not only does it crumble on itself, it also shows that you are a big hypocrite. You use logical reasoning to discredit other gods, but you want illogical reasoning to credit yours."

    --This is the problem when one forces himself so late into other peoples debate. If you read my previous posts, I have argued that people, for the most part, base their conclusions on pre-conceived notions. No one will accept any supernatural conclusion if they assume that supernatural phenomenon aren't in the least bit possible --isn't this logical enough? Do you think someone, who assumes materialism to be true, would readily accept the possibility of supernatural phenomenon even if it bit him in the ass? No, not if he wants to remain logical, because To do so would be to logically contradict oneself. I cannot simultaneously believe the defense attorney's case is possibly true while the prosecutor's cannot possibly be wrong. I suggest you read my previous posts to get a better understanding of what I'm really saying.

  196. D-K

    "please tell me the difference between these two statements:

    1. I BELIEVE God does not exist. And, 2. I don’t believe God exists"

    One is the presence of belief, the other is absense of belief. I explained this, but I'll say it again (how "tedious"), "Belief" is to take something as fact without empirical evidence.. etc. I cannot for a fact say that there is a god, but I can't say for a fact that there isn't a god either, thus I refrain from BELIEF in either
    side of the argument. I use logic instead, that is the difference. I am agnostic towards the "god" issue.

    ---

    Ugh.. how embarassing.. the theory/hypothesis thing again..

    semantical error, I meant hypothesis instead of theory..(i do this with evidence/proof sometimes too) I should proof-read.

    for clarification:

    I said: "I said: “We don’t plug holes with assumptions because they neatly wrap up a theory,
    then go on to CLAIM IT AS FACT or law”

    correct

    Then I slipped up, and meant to type:

    "In a theory, when some links are missing, scientist hypothezise(assume) on what may be
    missing, insert the mechanic and then test it (methametically, in theoretical science).
    If it holds up, it gets incorporated in the HYPOTHESIS(*). Science does not dub anything
    fact if it isn’t fact.

    Then I slipped up some more here: "Dark energy and matter aren’t facts. They are terms spawned from a hypothesis to explain certain holes in the BB theory. Again, the key word is HYPOTHESIS(*)"

    Referring to the word "hypothesis" in the sentence before it: "spawned from a hypothesis to..."

    "Science does not dub anything fact if it isn’t fact" Was simply a statement, not me saying you'd imply otherwise.

    ---

    We're sidetracking again, to the point where i forgot what even sparked this discussion,
    but seeing as we're obviously not making any progress, I say let's put this thing on hold
    (yet again).

  197. jari

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI

    I have read your previous posts. Your logic still forms a complete circular vortex. And you seem to dodge one simple question. Do you accept miracles written in other holy text books as facts?

  198. ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    "I cannot for a fact say that there is a god, but I can’t say for a fact that there isn’t a god either, thus I refrain from BELIEF in either
    side of the argument. I use logic instead, that is the difference. I am agnostic towards the “god” issue."

    --That's not what you initially said. I will give you the benefit of doubt that it's what you meant, but it wasn't what you said. You said you "don't believe" --this is not agnosticism, this is atheism. But now you say you "refrain from belief"; so fine, you misstated, nothing for me to be tearful about.

    "We’re sidetracking again, to the point where i forgot what even sparked this discussion,
    but seeing as we’re obviously not making any progress, I say let’s put this thing on hold
    (yet again)."

    -- I think you'll find that the digression is all your fault, but it's a digression that to me was worth having. Sure, let's stop debating, it is getting tedious, especially seeing as it isn't only you who wants me to clarify things in here. Have a nice day.

  199. ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Jari

    No I don't think you did. Since you're attributing to me something I am not arguing for. Taking the post you quoted me from, I can understand why you would think I was, but taking all my arguments in context, your not justified in thingking so.

    No, I don't have any reason to accept miracles presnted in other holy books.

  200. jari

    @ilovemyselfmorethani

    "No, I don’t have any reason to accept miracles presnted in other holy books."

    of course! LOL. I rest my case.

  201. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ jari

    "of course! LOL. I rest my case."

    Your case was that people shouldn't accept things when there's no reason to? I don't think anyone here has ever tried to dispute that.

  202. D-K

    Ilovemyself:

    How is that not correct? I do not believe in god, but I don't disbelieve either. I argue that since there isn't any empirical or otherwise compelling evidence, I refrain from passing final judgement on the matter.

    Example: There is a box in the room, someone asks me what's in the box, considering the variables, I can formulate a probable answer or hypothesis on what's in there, but without proof of what's in there, I can never know for sure.

    If I cannot know for sure, then I don't know. Simple as that.

    Do I believe there is a god? no. Am I saying there isn't or can't be a god? no. Am I skeptical about evidence of both sides of the argument? yes. What's my final stance on whether or not there is a god? I don't know.

    I am agnostic, never have I said that I am an atheist, nor have I disputed existance of your god. I merely questioned the logic and validity of the evidence you provided, and offered my opinion, as I do with all evidence.

    Atheist's believe, agnosts don't.

    ---

    Free dictionary:

    a·the·ist (th-st)
    n.
    One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

    ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
    n.
    1.
    a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

  203. D-K

    @ilovemyself:

    I trust you won't take the word "believe" in the agnostic definition out of context. Replace it with the word "thinks" for a more accurate description.

  204. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @D-K

    Are you saying I misunderstood you? Not hardly.

    "How is that not correct? I do not believe in god, but I don’t disbelieve either. I argue that since there isn’t any empirical or otherwise compelling evidence, I refrain from passing final judgement on the matter."

    -- Well that's not what you initially said. What you said was

    "I have no beliefs, I don't BELIEVE)"

    If you say you "don't believe" then you cannot mean that you don't know, or "refrain from passing belief" --they are not the same. You either believe, you don't believe, or you don't know. If you "don't BELIEVE" the you ARE passing belief -- you believe the negative.

    You further tried to clarify your position but ended up being more unintelligible when you said:

    "I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god."

    -- 1. If you "don't believe there is a God" then you believe there is no God (atheist). 2. If you "don't believe there is no God" then you cannot believe that a God does not exist (theist). Combining the 2 phrases does not show agnosticism.

    Again, you either believe, do not believe, or don't know. Believing while simultaneously not believing is not agnosticism, it's just logical contradiction.

  205. D-K

    @IlovemyselfmorethanI:

    Well that's just not true. I hold no affirmative belief in god, nor do I claim his inexistance, that is all I said. I do not believe, like you, that it is a fact that god exists, ergo I do not believe.

    Seriously, how are you not getting this, you can try to attack my intelligence all you want, but your making no headway with these senseless arguments.

    "I do not believe in god" does not equal "there is no god".. how can you not comprehend that? The statement says that I am unwilling to take the existance of god as a fact based on simply believing that it is so.

    Again, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE:

    Atheists BELIEVE that there is NO god. They believe. BELIEVE. Agnosts don't believe that there is a god, but they don't DISBELIEVE either, they HOLD NO BELIEFS.

    My wording in the initial statement might have been less than cristal clear, but it is NOT a logical fallacy, sir. I don't dabble in those. You simply mistook the meaning because you were assuming i'm an atheist. I am not.

    "Again, you either believe, do not believe, or don’t know"

    Incorrect, you either believe, disbelieve, or don't know"

    I'm the latter: (as i've stated it EXACTLY) I don't know.. Just because I don't believe that there is a god, does not mean that i believe there is no god. Believing something is a conclusion (based on an assumption), to take something as fact. I do not take god as fact, but I don't deny his existance either.

    You saw a sentence with multiple possible meanings, and picked one, discarding the other possibilities.

    ---

    "– 1. If you “don’t believe there is a God” then you believe there is no God (atheist).

    2. If you “don’t believe there is no God” then you cannot believe that a God does not exist (theist). Combining the 2 phrases does not show agnosticism.

    I never said that I believe that a god does not exist, as that would make me an atheist. Not believing that there is a god is not the same as saying there is no god. I have explained this enough in this comment.

    Frankly, if you don't understand after all this, you need to educate yourself on the term agnosticism.

  206. D-K

    Know what, I'll simplefy it for you, as I clearly need to:

    example: I don't believe there is an eiffeltower in paris.. there might be one, but because I haven't seen it, I can never say for a fact that it's there. I'm not saying there is no eiffel tower, I just can't accept it as fact because I haven't seen it.

    See what I did there?

    I don't believe in the eiffel tower, but i'm not saying it's not there either. I simply cannot state it as fact, because I don't know it for a fact.

  207. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @D-K

    Look, man, I know what you are saying now, but you cannot blame me for retorting the way I did because what you said was exaclty this

    "I have no beliefs, I DON'T BELIEVE" = Y

    and this:

    “I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god.” = Z

    KEEP Y and Z in the frame for a minute. Remember them!

    "Atheists BELIEVE that there is NO god. They believe. BELIEVE. Agnosts don’t believe that there is a god, but they don’t DISBELIEVE either, they HOLD NO BELIEFS."

    -- Atheists believe that there is NO god, true, and they don't believe that God exists. Belief CAN BE IN THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. There is no difference between believing that God does not exist, and disbelieving that God exists -- THEY ARE THE SAME.

    "Agnosts don’t believe that there is a god, but they don’t DISBELIEVE either, they HOLD NO BELIEFS."

    -- NO! Agnostics Don't know whether God exists. It is wrong to say that they "don't believe that there is a god" because if they don't believe that there is a God, then that would mean that they believe there is No God, then that would make them ATHEISTS. CHECK YOUR OWN POSTED DEFINITION OF THE WORD AGNOSTIC. (See my explanation above where I show belief in a the negative is the same disbelief in a the positive).

    You corrected yourself and say that you don't believe in God, but again look at statements Y and Z. Saying you don't believe in God is different from saying you don't believe there is a God -- which is WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER.

  208. Achems Razor

    Unbelievable! (LOL)

    The Hebrew word for believe, is aman.
    Aman means to believe, when religee's say "in Jesus name amen".
    "means I believe it"!

    Believe means to lean upon. Amen means to lean upon God. if you do not believe in God, you do not lean upon God, but does not mean there is no God.
    It is as simple as that!

  209. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    "Frankly, if you don’t understand after all this, you need to educate yourself on the term agnosticism."

    No, YOU should educate yourself on the term agnosticism. An agnostic isn't someone who:

    "don’t believe that there is a god, but they don’t DISBELIEVE either"

    Why don't you unpack this definition of yours. You say an agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, but doesn't disbelieve either, and you call this "refrain[ing] from passing beliefs"?

    Firstly, if you "don't believe that there is a God" then you necessarily believe that there is No God, which makes you pass beliefs!

    You seriously are not getting this? Geez

    Lol!

  210. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Achems Razor

    If you want to use the Hebrew translations of words, then you're free to do so.

    But the word "believe" simply means to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof.

  211. D-K

    Not believing that there is a god is not the same as believing that there is no god.

    What on earth makes you think that it is?

    "There is no difference between believing that God does not exist, and disbelieving that God exists — THEY ARE THE SAME.

    This is true, I never argued otherwise though.

    Z is a direct result of Y, which is a given.

    " It is wrong to say that they “don’t believe that there is a god” because if they don’t believe that there is a God, then that would mean that they believe there is No God, then that would make them ATHEISTS"

    By saying they don't believe i'm illustrating the ABSENCE of belief, not the presence of disbelief. It is right to say it because agnosts don't believe that there is a god. In other words, they don't take god's existance as fact. There is no arguing this, this is fact.

    A: Agnosts don't believe anything.

    B: Agnosts do not believe in god.

    B is a direct result from A.

    Ergo, agnosts do not believe in god, but they do not disblieve either, because they are unable to "believe" anything. This means that stating that agnosts "do not believe in god" is correct, even if it can be misconstrued to picture them having a negative belief. It's all semantics, but you're making it seem like I uttered a logical fallacy when I didn't, you merely misunderstood the context.

    "Saying you don’t believe in God is different from saying you don’t believe there is a God — which is WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER"

    I don't "believe" anything, that pretty much covers it.

    I'm not sure if you've seen my eiffeltower example, but it sheds some light as well.

  212. D-K

    "Firstly, if you “don’t believe that there is a God” then you necessarily believe that there is No God, which makes you pass beliefs!"

    This is not true. NOT TRUE. Stop repeating a false claim.

    let me use caps on the entire thing, let it sink in this time.

    "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD", IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "THERE IS NO GOD"

    Believing is taking it as fact. Rationally, you cannot take it as fact without empirical or compelling evidence. We both started out at the premise of: "there might be a god" and where you went the way of "there is a god" and others went the way of "there is no god" I'm still stuck at "there might be a god". This means that i don't believe, nor do I disbelieve.

    If you don't get it after this one, we'll really have to pull the plug on this debate.

  213. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-K

    “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD”, IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING “THERE IS NO GOD”

    -- YES, BUT YOU DID NOT INITIALLY SAY THAT YOU "DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD". What you said was, and I'll quote you exactly:

    "****I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god*****. There is more to the equation than belief, disbelief and apathy, you know…"

    -- Read what you said, read it a MILLION TIMES. You didn't say you didn't believe in God, you said:

    "I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god"

    --If you don't believe there is a god, which you are CLEARLY saying above, then you BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD. So you are passing belief. WOW you are dense.

  214. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @D-K

    Again, let me repeat. It's either you 1 believe, 2 you don't believe (or disbelieve if you prefer! they are the same!) or 3 you don't know. You can only choose between these, you cannot mix them and say it amounts to number 3, that is logical contradiction.

    You cannot disbelieve something and say that your disbelief means that you don't know.

  215. Achems Razor

    @ I.L.M.M.T.I.

    Since we are all separate entities.
    What I "believe" is the capacity of the human mind to believe what it expects or wants to believe, and to twist the evidence to fit those expectations or beliefs. Now, I am talking about beliefs, not science and proven facts.

    For us atheists, the things we believe that are true to us, and the things we believe that are good to us, do not have to be the same things to you.

    We do not see God as one source of "all that is" we do not see God period!

  216. D-K

    I don't disbelieve it.

    .....

    "I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god*****. There is more to the equation than belief, disbelief and apathy, you know…”

    I'll rephrase:

    "I don't take it as a fact, without empirical evidence or otherwise compelling evidence, that there is a god. I also don't take take it as fact, without empirical evidence or otherwise compelling evidence that there is no god"

    Which Illustrates the absence of belief, and both quotes say the exact same thing.

    I could send you a picture of me sitting on a fence to clearly convey my standpoint, but it would be in vain if you fail to grasp the concept of non-belief. Non-belief, in the whole god matter, is equal to "not knowing". I don't accept either "answer", because I don't think there is an answer (currently).

    I'm calling it quits here, I cannot make myself any clearer.

  217. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ D-k

    Are you saying that the sentence:

    "I don't believe there is a God"

    is different from?

    "I disbelieve that there is a God"

    ?

  218. D-K

    I'm saying non-belief is different from disbelief.

    Fin.

  219. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    If you don't believe the positive of X, then you believe the negative of X. It's as simple as that. If you say you "don't believe there is a god" then you believe there is no God, which makes you not an agnostic. I suggest you study the definition of the word.

    I'm done here.

  220. eireannach666

    @DK

    You should of just said that you dont belive either way on the god topic , since there is no proof eitherway.I will say that
    agnostic is defined as : "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)"

    Just come to the darkside DK. There is no god and at least 99% of the evidence is on the side of there not being one.

    Horns.

  221. eireannach666

    non-belief is not believing
    dibelief is doubting belief but not really saying it isnt so.

    atheist=non-belief
    agnostic=disbelief

  222. D-K

    @Eireannach666:

    I did. I said exactly that.

    "“I don’t believe there is a god, I also don’t believe there is no god*****. There is more to the equation than belief, disbelief and apathy, you know…”

    I’ll rephrase:

    “I don’t take it as a fact, without empirical evidence or otherwise compelling evidence, that there is a god. I also don’t take take it as fact, without empirical evidence or otherwise compelling evidence that there is no god”

    I also stated that I don't choose an answer, because I don't think there is an answer (currently).

    I'm quite skeptical of evidence that is pro-god, but I chose to remain as objective as possible, and as such cannot exclude possibility of existant dieties. I am bound to remain on the fence, as my logic demands objectivity.

    I'm fine with not having an answer though, it's not exactly eating me up inside. Although I have dismissed (organized) religion alltogether already, the god question remains open and thus irrelevant to my decision making.

  223. D-K

    non-belief is not believing
    dibelief is doubting belief but not really saying it isnt so.

    atheist=non-belief
    agnostic=disbelief

    I disagree, and so does Merriam Webster:

    Main Entry: dis·be·lief
    Pronunciation: \?dis-b?-?l?f\
    Function: noun
    Date: 1672
    : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

    That's atheism.

    Only wiki has nonbelief:

    NounSingular
    nonbeliever

    nonbeliever (plural nonbelievers)

    1.a person who does not believe; especially regarding religion.

    That makes agnosts.

  224. eireannach666

    @DK
    "I also stated that I don’t choose an answer, because I don’t think there is an answer (currently)."

    I feel you. Just pointing out the difference since ILMMTI seems to want to press the issue. Being reserved is OK with me,if thats what you do.

    You know I respect your opinions DK.

    And , Yes , religion = bad.Not to mention a few other choice words that come to mind , evil etc..

  225. D-K

    This one from thesaurus

    Main Entry: agnostic
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: person unsure that God exists
    Synonyms: doubter, freethinker, materialist, skeptic, unbeliever
    Notes: an agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God; an atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
    Antonyms: believer

    atheist: disbelief
    and considering the antonym is believer, one could logically assume that "non-believer" would be a synonym for agnost

  226. D-K

    And I respect you, sir. But I have done some quick research, and I see that many different sites have different definitions that sometimes overlap and even contradict.

    Weird stuff

  227. eireannach666

    *disbelief

  228. D-K

    Ah, well yes, by the definitions you use, agnosts and atheists make the old switcheroo.

    Like I said, 10 minutes of google got me a bunch of sources with overlapping and contradicting definitions, and apparantly, thesaurus disagrees with itself.

    It's anarchy, I tells ya! anarchy!

  229. eireannach666

    @DK

    I noticed the same thing.

    It really boils down to the fact that you dont sway to either side and others do. I myself am 100% atheist as ILMMTI is a believer of some kind.

    To each his own , but religion is such an outdated and ignorant way to explain the unknown and a very silly controlling superstition.

    I guess it takes all kinds unfortunately.
    Slainte.

  230. eireannach666

    @DK

    Our comments are lagging.

    Anarchy. Hmmph. I can dig it.

  231. eireannach666

    @DK

    American English does that alot , by the way.Its all on use of the word. Its a rough language to learn if your from another country that doesnt use it. And add all the slang and those misuses of words- Whoa!

  232. D-K

    I know, english is my third langauge, but also my favourite.

  233. eireannach666

    I always liked German alot. Of course Gaelic, but so few speak it or even know what it is. Someone asked me if it was a gay sexual term. Not joking.

  234. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    The problem is this:

    When you have multiple possible outcomes, your statement would make sense, but when you have clearly only 2 possible ways to go, it wont.

    If you don't believe a statement is true, then you believe it is false.

    If you don't know, then you don't know and should not say that you don't believe it is true and don't believe it is false.

    Saying that you don't believe a statement is true, and don't believe a statement is false isn't the same as saying you don't know whether the statement is true or false.

    Therefore the statement "I don't believe there is a God" is analogous to "I believe there is no God". When a statement has only 2 possible outcomes, one being the negation of the other ('p' and 'not p'), withholding belief on one means you are passing belief on the negation of it.

    You can pick one of a variety of meanings of the word "believe" to be generous to yourself, and make some substitutions to your original statement to make it seem like you're making sense. But that doesn't change what I said above.

  235. Achems Razor

    @ ILMMTI:

    You know, this is getting as boring as the (CA) cosmological argument,

    Give it up, religee's always must have the last word!

  236. D-K

    I thought you were done here... apparently not. Seeing as you're not totally pants-on-head r*tarded, I'll try once more.

    Little jimmy runs up to his classmates, he says he found a dead body. Then asks: Do you believe me?

    Everyone reacts with this statement: Well, jim-jim.. we're not just gonna take your word on that, we'll have to see for ourselves.

    See?

    They don't believe jimmy, but they don't claim he lies either. They refrain from believing (until they see the body)

    The key part of that sentence is "they don't believe jimmy"

    They don't believe in the corpse, but they don't disbelieve either. They're in a state of non-belief, not simply believing that there is a corpse, although not stating that there isn't or can't be a corpse.

    See? DO YOU SEE? DO YOU EFFIN SEE NOW?

    "If you don’t believe a statement is true, then you believe it is false"

    This is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.. from you.. thusfar.

    "I have 11 cats, 4 dogs and 7 snakes in my home"

    You can believe that statement, or you can believe it's false, OR YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU CANNOT KNOW THUS YOU DON'T SIMPLY BELIEVE ME/TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

    Not believing can be both an expression of affirmitive belief or indicating the absence of belief, you thickheaded silly man, you..

  237. D-K

    "When you have multiple possible outcomes, your statement would make sense, but when you have clearly only 2 possible ways to go, it wont"

    You contradict yourself here

    You said that there are 3 outcomes: belief, disbelief and not knowing.

    Which is correct, (leaving other religions out of the equation)

    "not knowing" is to not believe either side of the argument. thus not believing in god, but also not believing there is no god, which is precisely what I said and have been saying.

    The first 2 options require belief, the third does not. So anyone belonging to the third catagory, does not believe in god, and does not disbelieve in him. and that's what an agnost is.

  238. Ben

    @ Ilovemyself morethanI

    You have made every effort to educate D-K but to no avail. The bottomline is that people who donot believe in God or his existance have been termed as "Atheists" no matter how they may stretch their confusing arguments -the likes of D-K- to convince us that there are not atheists. Agreeing to D-K's arguement of "non-belief is not believing" non-belief and dis-belief" would be equatted to one admitting there is someone without eyes but not blind. Can this be true that one may be with no eyes and yet claim not to be blind? Impossible! This is what D-K wantus to believe. D-K is an atheist.Period!

    Would D_K believe me if i told him that my sister earns her living by selling her body to men but she is not a prostitute? Category No 3 is where D-K falls.He doesnot not know.Both D-K and I lovemy self..... are debating from two different wave length. Simply put,DK is confused. Such confusion at times stem from limited knowledge due to low education.Admittedly,some people go through various levels of edation at school but come out as they entered.People have relied so much on educating themselves through internet - search engines and this has given them confidence to boldly think that they know it all. I would advise that if you know you have not studied up to an under-graduate level,you refrain from participating in this debate because it requires a mature approach. As for those who think that the existance God can be proved in a lab or through any scientific means, you are at a loss because man has no capacity to prove God's existance,just like no animal has a capacity to logically reason.Its made that way. Man is endowed with gifts of logic and reason and God planted eternity in the heart of man with enough knowledge to know Him.But Man also has the mother of all gifts--CHOICE-he can chose to believe in his Maker or decide not to.However,man should be ready to stand before His maker at the end of his life for accountability. At this point,i know people are already bored with how far i have gone but one day the truth will be known.

    I lovemyself-----just call it off. You will not make D-K understand---

  239. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    "You said that there are 3 outcomes: belief, disbelief and not knowing."

    --Really? The question is if God exists or not, you think a possible outcome is "not knowing"? There are only 2 possible outcomes you thickheaded silly man, he does exist or he doesn't. "Not knowing" is not an outcome.

    "“not knowing” is to not believe either side of the argument."

    --Uh, no. "Not knowing" is not knowing WHAT TO BELIEVE, IT ISN'T NOT BELIEVING EITHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. You can't say, I don't believe it is true, I don't believe it is false either, and expect that to mean that you don't know if it is true or false!

  240. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    "The first 2 options require belief, the third does not. So anyone belonging to the third catagory, does not believe in god, and does not disbelieve in him. and that’s what an agnost is."

    -- You are conflating non-belief with your statement "I don't believe". You can argue that the first is apathy, but the second a choice whether to take a particular stance or not.

  241. Ben

    @ D-K & eireannach666

    If both of you were subjected to the same examination in a classroom and given difference seats so one would not copy the one, you would most likely get the same marks or near to that.Your reasoning is the same.

    Psalm 14.1 offers a true and accurate description of atheists: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

    Luke 6:39 (New Living Translation)
    39 Then Jesus gave the following illustration: “Can one blind person lead another? Won’t they both fall into a ditch?

    I know that you will take offence of me but my quietness has been stretched to the limit because of your statements.

  242. D-K

    “You said that there are 3 outcomes: belief, disbelief and not knowing.”

    –Really? The question is if God exists or not, you think a possible outcome is “not knowing”? There are only 2 possible outcomes you thickheaded silly man, he does exist or he doesn’t. “Not knowing” is not an outcome.

    I misspoke, there are indeed 2 outcomes. but 3 stances on the matter that has no outcome at this time.

    ---

    "Uh, no. “Not knowing” is not knowing WHAT TO BELIEVE, IT ISN’T NOT BELIEVING EITHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. You can’t say, I don’t believe it is true, I don’t believe it is false either, and expect that to mean that you don’t know if it is true or false"

    If you don't know what to believe, you're not believing either choice, cause and effect. Sigh, It seems i really have to draw this out:

    I say: there is a diner on the moon.

    1 You say: I believe you.

    2 or you say: I don't believe you.

    3 or you say: I can't know that for sure.

    (let's go with #3)

    Then I say: Oh, so you don't believe me? You don't take my word for it?

    You say: well it seems rather unlikely, so i'll refrain from believing you, but i'm not saying your lying.

    I say: well.. you don't believe me, which i can understand because a diner on the moon is weird, but you're not saying i'm lying either. This means you won't simply take my word for a fact without opposing me, how fiendishly clever.

    ..

    TADAA!

  243. D-K

    Ben: My comment to you is in moderation, shockingly.

    Expect to see it soon.

  244. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    "Little jimmy runs up to his classmates, he says he found a dead body. Then asks: Do you believe me?
    Everyone reacts with this statement: Well, jim-jim.. we’re not just gonna take your word on that, we’ll have to see for ourselves."

    --In your example, they said "we won't take your word on that" which is different from saying "Jimmy, we don't believe that there is a corpse". The last is more akin to what you said.

    "They don’t believe jimmy, but they don’t claim he lies either. They refrain from believing (until they see the body)"

    -- If they don't believe Jimmy, they would've said, "Jimmy, we don't believe you" which is different from saying "we won't just take your word for it". If "they don't believe Jimmy" then they are NOT "REFRAINING FROM BELIEVING" --THEY DON'T BELIEVE, THEREFORE THEY BELIEVE THE NEGATION.

    "They don’t believe in the corpse, but they don’t disbelieve either. They’re in a state of non-belief, not simply believing that there is a corpse, although not stating that there isn’t or can’t be a corpse."

    -- You think "don't believe" is the same as "non-belief"? The first is a choice taken (to not believe) the second CAN be passive disinterest -- They are not the same.

    "You can believe that statement, or you can believe it’s false, OR YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU CANNOT KNOW THUS YOU DON’T SIMPLY BELIEVE ME/TAKE MY WORD FOR IT."

    --Nice try adding the "SIMPLY". Let's take it out, to be more akin to what you said:

    you say:

    “I have 11 cats, 4 dogs and 7 snakes in my home”

    and then without the "SIMPLY" :

    "You can believe that statement, or you can believe it’s false, OR YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU CANNOT KNOW THUS YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME/TAKE MY WORD FOR IT."

    I'll replace your "ME" with "you", since I'm talking to you.
    The options you presented are:

    1. I can believe the statement
    2. I can believe it's false (I don't believe you)
    3. I don't know, so I say "I don't believe you"

    Look at numbers 2 and 3. at number

    2. I don't believe you

    and at number 3

    3. I don't know, so I don't believe you.

    Wow You're making so much sense!

    conclusion:

    IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THEN YOU WON'T CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE!
    IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T TAKE A STANCE, SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT STANCE TO TAKE!

    CHOICE TO NOT BELIEVE = "I DON'T BELIEVE"
    APATHY = "NON-BELIEF"

  245. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Ok, I guess I should stop now. Hahaha. We are annoying people here (at least I know I am)

    The point of the matter is, I know your position, you are an agnostic. This is all clear to me now, I'm not arguing otherwise. I just didn't agree with the grammar of your statements.

    But by all means, O.K. You win, you win. Lol

  246. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    @ Achems Razor

    "Give it up, religee’s always must have the last word!"

    -- I'm guessing you have never heard Christopher Hitchens debate a "religee".

  247. D-K

    "–In your example, they said “we won’t take your word on that” which is different from saying “Jimmy, we don’t believe that there is a corpse”. The last is more akin to what you said"

    It's not different, it has different connotations, connotations are often subjective and irrational, which seems to be the case now. Not taking someone's word for it is exactly the same as not SIMPLY believing them.

    The word simply was a trap, it actually adds nothing but it DOES make you look at the sentence differently and even interpret it differently.

    " If they don’t believe Jimmy, they would’ve said, “Jimmy, we don’t believe you” which is different from saying “we won’t just take your word for it”.

    Same thing, different connotations. Connotations are personal and irrelevant. I am to be taken literally, as I've stated before on this site.

    If “they don’t believe Jimmy” then they are NOT “REFRAINING FROM BELIEVING” –THEY DON’T BELIEVE, THEREFORE THEY BELIEVE THE NEGATION"

    False, believing the negation is actively believing. not believing can be either actively disbelieving or refraining from belief. I'm repeating myself here.

    "“You can believe that statement, or you can believe it’s false, OR YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU CANNOT KNOW THUS YOU DON’T SIMPLY BELIEVE ME/TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.”

    –Nice try adding the “SIMPLY”. Let’s take it out, to be more akin to what you said:

    That's my point, the "simply" has no value, it just makes you interpret the sentence differently, but it's the same message. It just makes believing seem more unreasonable and irrational, even though believing is inherently irrational already.

    "1. I can believe the statement
    2. I can believe it’s false (I don’t believe you)
    3. I don’t know, so I say “I don’t believe you”

    Look at numbers 2 and 3. at number

    2. I don’t believe you

    and at number 3

    3. I don’t know, so I don’t believe you.

    Wow You’re making so much sense!"

    That DOES make sense, but for clarification, you should add to #3 (exactly like I did, trying to prevent this mess) 3 "I don't know, so I don't believe you, but i'm not disbelieving you either"

    Sure, you won't be mr. popular, but you'll be mr. logical. For me, that's enough.

    Passively not-believing is not a choice, it's the default, actively believing or disbelieving is the choice.

    Claiming you can't know, because it cannot be proven IS taking a stance. it's why it's called agnosticism rather than psuedo-atheism.

    Apathy is always non-belief but non-belief is not always apathy.

  248. D-K

    Graciously exiting after such hearty debate isn't fair. You make me look all mean and comitted and whatnot.

    Try to see my side of the argument, you'll meet plenty an agnostic who'll argue the same thing. There are hardly any agnostics here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't the only medium on which you debate faith.

    Btw, I get your points, but your arguing connotations and word association, rather than factual grammar and word-implication.

    2 different sides of the same coin, but they hardly agree with one another, obviously.

    Go with god.

    (lol, always wanted to say that)

  249. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Ok, like I said you win.

    But I just have to point this out:

    1. "we’re not just gonna take your word on that"
    2. "The key part of that sentence is “they don’t believe jimmy”

    You argue that 1 and 2 are the same. No they aren't.

    'We're not just going to take your word' would be the same with 'they WONT just believe' .

    But

    'we're not just going to take your word' is different from 'they don't believe' statement 1 not equal to statement 2. You argued in your last post that they were equal. They're not.

    Therefore:

    'I won't just believe that there is a God' is different from 'I don't believe there is a God'

    The first expresses that the person will not make the choice to believe without further reason/evidence/proof.

    The second already made a choice: to not believe.

    "I won't just believe" is different from "I don't believe"

  250. IlovemyselfmorethanI

    Ok, I didn't see your last post when I posted my last. Damn!

    Forget what I said. To be honest, I really do see your point. I just hate losing! Lol

    Have a nice day

  251. Achems Razor

    @ ILMMTI:

    Au-Contraire, Have been on TDF forums longer than you, have heard and read enough debates to write a book. argumentum ad nauseam!

    Religee's always seem to want the last word, case in point, you!

    And @ Ben: you should not deride @ D.K. or anybody that they have low education, puts you automatically in a bad light! That is called disrespect! By doing that, to me, your arguments will be forever moot!

  252. Achems Razor

    Actually, I should clarify, I meant to say, am convinced that @ D.K.:
    has a lot of education, and according to him, has more than one language under his belt, He is voiced in many categories, have utmost respect for him!

  253. D-K

    “The bottomline is that people who donot believe in God or his existance have been termed as “Atheists” no matter how they may stretch their confusing arguments”

    Excuse me? You think that agnosts believe in god? Or do you believe that agnosts are actually confused atheists? Because the way you paint it, there are either religious people, or atheists and nothing more.

    “Agreeing to D-K’s arguement of “non-belief is not believing” non-belief and dis-belief” would be equatted to one admitting there is someone without eyes but not blind. Can this be true that one may be with no eyes and yet claim not to be blind? Impossible! This is what D-K wantus to believe. D-K is an atheist.Period!”

    Ok, that analogy doesn’t make any sense. Seriously. It’s unwise to bring a knife to a gunfight, but showing up with nothing more than a vague scribble of a knife on a napkin is just stupid.

    “Would D_K believe me if i told him that my sister earns her living by selling her body to men but she is not a prostitute?”

    She could be a testee in a pharmacuetical company. But I thought i made myself clear, I don’t believe anything, I concern myself with factual knowledge.

    “Category No 3 is where D-K falls.He doesnot not know”

    Indeed, that makes me an agnost, not an atheist, though.

    “Simply put,DK is confused. Such confusion at times stem from limited knowledge due to low education.Admittedly,some people go through various levels of edation at school but come out as they entered”

    Yes.. it is clear that I am the one who needs education/edation..

    “search engines and this has given them confidence to boldly think that they know it all”

    Ah yes… agnosts… they’re well-known for the uncanny ability to know everything.. even how to circumvent oxymo rons, apparently.

    “I would advise that if you know you have not studied up to an under-graduate level,you refrain from participating in this debate because it requires a mature approach”

    When I recover from being flabbergasted by your folksy wisdom, I shall take up that edation, and edate myself to not seem like such a clown.

    muchos appreciados.

  254. D-K

    last comment is directed at ben.

    I figured quickly c/p-ing and spacing between oxymo ron would be less confusing that having my reply to ben show
    up tomorrow, buried under countless of other comments.

  255. D-K

    Achems:

    I pay thanks to your kind words, sir.

  256. D-K

    IlovemyselfbutDKmore

    "Ok, I didn’t see your last post when I posted my last. Damn!

    Forget what I said. To be honest, I really do see your point. I just hate losing! Lol

    Have a nice day"

    hahaha, no problem. This was fun ^__^

  257. Kurrrt

    The King or the kidder?

  258. Wowie

    The miracles of Jesus are authentic and should not be doubted!! His power came from God the Father and it comes from the word! All the other prophets that performed miracles have said that its not them that made it happen but it is by the power of God!!! That's how miracles happen!!! Real miracles that is...!

  259. Keith

    I am a Christian.

    Everything should be doubted.

    Faith does not step beyond reason though faith does reorganize the truths tat science brings us.

    Science is not evil.

    Science is subject to the pecualaities of the time. Not the whims of the magistrate any more.

  260. Seeker

    Why would Jesus need to take his old body in his resurecution? Would not his body just be an unneeded shell. Espicaily for a god? Would he have not returned in a powerful god spirit for all to see?

  261. Kurrrt

    Thomas, who walked right along with Jesus and was one of his deciples, mentions-> not one miracle. Amazing right? Read the origional Thomas papers and find one. The miracles of Chris Angel are much more remarkable if your looking for supernatural amazement. My grandfather died and I loved him way more then any Jesus stuff. And so should you. Listen to Jethro Tull "Living in the Past". Well hello, this is now the future. What truth has the past taught us that doesn't happen today? Reality? Life would be much more enjoyable without religion and all those Gods out there. Expecially paying attention to the ones that don't even exist in the first place. When will religious followers eyes open to the sillyness, and become leaders of the self. Think, and have a wonderful life without this projected fear of a place called hell. Just keep useing the word god as a figure of speech, as it's mostly used anyway. Peace to all humanity

  262. Olu

    I don't care what the world says about Jesus Christ, I only know of his power in my life. To me, Jesus Christ was not only the son of God; Jesus is GOD, risen or not!

  263. Kurrrt

    *Olu
    I care for everyone in the world. It's your free choice to believe and trust in Jesus or a God in which you believe makes you a better human being in our society -is a very good thing. May your God bless you.
    Others who believe in a different God, may their God bless them too. And those non-religious who have no God, what the heck -bless them too. It's all about being the best human one can be, God or no God.

  264. Liquid

    gotta love the bible, biggest Con of them all
    persecution of non-believes, seems to be a "nice" way to get your point across
    the only truth is science..hell without science "your" book wouldnt exist..
    peace out to my fellow atheist, to the "believers" the dark ages await you (look on the bright side, at least u will have something to read)

  265. justjane

    o ye of little faith... faith is that which i believed but not seen, to get this "jesus" (which is a latin translation of the name "joshua", you must have faith. without this faith you won't ever get it. which is okay with me... see you in hell? another misconception. hell is within as is faith.

  266. justjane

    oops that is "is" not "i" stupid vibrations

  267. Kurrrt

    Faith: Is a Belief that does not rest on any logical proof or material evidence... Those who base their life on such a belief perhaps should evaluate the subject they aim towards. God is still to this day not an existing entity. God is a human expression for any major concerns or selfish personal ideals needed. Shedding this belief in the non existing should be practiced. It's the many different religions with the illogical claim of each different God being the only one. Any religion divided so many various ways, is not religion at all. It only forces the conflict of the many various faiths to disagree and cause a great seperation within humanity, it's also done on purpose by very unreasonable methods. The dark age remains within those in the dark. All those experts on religion with a piece of the puzzle don't have seem to have their pieces in the correct spot, because of a deception on massave scales.
    *There is a God, a Jesus, angels, the devil, a hell with demons, make any sence what so ever? As in this lifetime fails to produce any of these entities. Producing an invisable entity is also the exact same thing as producing the non existing. Exposing truth is factual in these cases to bring enlightening thought to life. Faith is a verb, not a noun.
    Anyone ever witness an angel flying around in our heaven lately? or catch one on the news? Perhaps the deception of flying entities are not what they appear. Are people witnessing more UFO's then an object in our heavens that looks like an angel? Ask a holy minister of a church in which they will illogicly supply you with the ancient script that came from the end of a pencil delivered to paper by a human being reflecting those who need be control of your society -telling you it's Gods word. Wake up to the real world and leave the 2000 year old controlling world behind, which will only then -allow us to graciously evolve into our next higher culture of understanding, creations true intention for mankind. Not some invisable outside entity. Distortion disallows any ability to comprehend an accurate picture. As in a maze you keep searching for the true pathway out of this distortion.
    May your life be generous enough to supply you with the ability to do so. Have a great day and a good 2010

  268. Kurrrt

    From being a Christian minister myself(in the past)for 13 years I researched God to the highest. Past and present Gods. Those within the churches doctrine who murdered their popes through history and also just not so long ago, had controlling reason for their action. Those truely in control above the pope are not even human beings, but in fact are of earth. And I found the most disturbing inhumane evils at force at the very top levels.
    I now see why our bibles tell tails of flesh eating entities devouring humankind in a place the holy bible calls hell. I will only mention that religion- unlike what creation offers- has a stronghold on this planet, and a place on earth does exist where evils beyond description play a part that mentions a biblical hell, that is a play-land compared with what extreme evils that now still exist beneath this planet. Various religions was just part of the plan, not by any mistake creates what we witness it create, hatred, pain, slavery, and war, even the money system was a planned evil to also further destroy, destine to fail and to have it's final ending. An enslavement plan designed for mankind has been well underway.
    This religious focus is wrong at every level. The ongoing persistent recruitment of earths inhabitants by unknowing recruiting ministers and pastors is planed down to the minuet detail, and wears a Vail of unawareness at an unimaginable magnitude. If recruiting ministries only knew, and then turn around to recapture our original design to regain our essence of consciousness focus on our self. And avoid unnecessary appointed Gods. Until then can we progress into our designated design together with creation and our original creator God who actually did create us in his image, lies the truth within us all. Without religion. To find God you need a mirror not an instruction book. Step out of the way of all illogical appointed religions and false Gods, stop following and be a kind leader of your fellow mankind. Awaken, evolve, be informed and focus only of truth to what your eyes can actually see, instead of being told to believe of something you cannot see. Peace, Love, and Harmony to all of you, now and through the rest of your live.

  269. Gnar

    Amen kurrrt. You know i saw jesus on the bus once. He told me the meaning of life and gave me a cookie. I don't remember the meaning of life but that was a great cookie.

  270. Kurrrt

    Gnar
    Oatmeal raison right? Seen em' too yup. On the Archer express in Chicago. Yes that was a good one, ha-ha..

  271. ez2b12

    @ ILMMTI and Ben

    Are you guys for real, you must be kidding right? Only two possible outcomes? Ahahahahahahahaha!!!! Thats the most narrow minded and ridiculus thing I have ever read on this site.

    There are three possible out comes when someone says "I dont believe in a god." They could mean, They do not believe in any gods, or they could mean they do not believe in only one god, or they could mean they are undecided and do not believe or disbelieve period. Only in a Christians mind could this narrow minded simple arguement seem logical, case closed. You guys are like the poster boys for the athiest cause, this is what your children will turn into if you let them buy this simple, outdated, and false belief system. Keep going, I'll get the camera.

    By the way for a bunch that supposedly runs on faith you guys sure seem to know of alot of proof of Jesus's existence. I guess that whole faith thing is just a phrase or something, huh. Look its fine to say there is small historical proof of his life, but surely you jest when you say he is the most documented ancient we know of. Not even the most devout and needy christians I know would try that.

    Remember in the bible when Jesus is talking to the disciple that wants to see his wounds and all. He is basically like now you see and believe and are blessed, but more blessed is the man who doesn't see and still believes. Now I am no christian or believer of any religion, but I would definetly agree with him on this point. Belief is sometimes beautiful- yes I said it. Belief is sometimes beautiful- why? Because it reveals faith or certainty in the face of tradgedy. I am even somewhat enviouse of this when I see it.

    I wish I could believe that it was all planned out to be o.k. as long as I followed a few moral rules and believed with all my heart, that i would get to see my dad again after he is gone, or that good always triumphs in the end. Unfortunately I can have no faith in what I know is not true. Good doesn't always triumph, we do not live in a moral or just universe (morality and justice are man made concepts), and things are probably not going to be O.k. no more than they are going to be bad. All things exist in a balance, in my experience. But when you guys start with this proof stuff it kills the only good I ever saw in the whole thing, learning to be optimistic or certain in the face of negativity and unpredictable tradgedies.

  272. peter

    Jesus is my lord he is inside my heart he guides me along my way , my life
    he is my friend
    he is my father
    he has done great things for me
    he came to our world to serve us but not to be served
    and for that he is my lord

  273. Kurrrt

    (geeze) It's cool to see that someone survived it through the cool-aid thing...

  274. Kurrrt

    Miracles happened more in ancient times, todays technology explains them. But for those ancients void of advancements in which the wool simply has been pulled over their eyes was mostly done with just trickery, then even believed into truths. Why modern day intelligence refers to ancient script is mostly applied by religions, because it restrict advanced understandings to retain their followers to follow ancient pathways, for their bibles have dark reasons.

  275. Ben

    @Kurrrt

    God and heaven function in a way only understandable to those who chose to comprehend things on God's terms and not the world's terms.

    Technology and advancement in science of whatever magnitude can never ever explain things Concerning Jesus.

    There was a man named Nicodemus, highly reputable and learned at the time Jesus.He came to Jesus at night wanting to know how he can have eternal life. Jesus told him that unless a man is born again, he cannot SEE the Kingdom of God.Note that there is a condition Jesus set in order for one to KNOW HIM.)He also explained to Nicodemus that what is born of flesh is flesh while that born of the spirit is spirit.(you seem to be confused already here Kurrt).The only way that you can understand things concerning Jesus is to admit that you are a sinner who needs forgiveness short of which you will be sentenced to eternal damnation from Him.

    1. There is no technology that can explain Jesus' miracles. Can you explain how he floated on water?Changed water into wine? Commanded demons to leave those they had possessed? Raised the dead and later raised Himself from the dead? (I know you still think that there was trickery involved but there were witnesses) Jesus is beyond proof and the fact remains that he lived on earth and He was seen by many witnesses.

    2 You are saying that the ancients were void of advancements......and that miracles done were by trickery. There is no body living in modernity today that has defeated the greatest enigma of mankind-death-like Jesus did.But this again comes to where we begun. You have no capacity to debate on what Jesus did because you are considered "blind" just like Nicodemus.

    I would rather live in this world as if there is a God who made me than to live as if there is none only to die and find that God really exists and would have to suffer the consequences since nothing would be done to reverse the order.

  276. Kurrrt

    You may have been told to believe that water can be walked on and water turned into wine. No one at all took notes as they walked along with Jesus, 40 authors took 125 years to write the bible. The deceptions are countless. Because dictators paid scribes to allow what they needed to enslave and command their society to obey them 500 years ago. There is no such thing as a God, it's just an expression of the needs of the religious. When people die today, we simply don't see them alive and walking around any more. Awaken to the facts of reality. Trickery was profound in ancient times.

    Chris Angel walks on air off building tops because it's just a trick. (miracle? nope). If heaven existed wouldn't you hear news of it on cable TV? Any news of an existing God today on CNNnews, NBCnews, CBSnews, FOXnews, or in your Sunday paper? Nope, ever hear of the term- make believe? It be a real miracle if you did. It's the ones who brought you a hell are the same ones who make you believe in a God. The location of hell is only in your mindset, or simply GPS it.

    The made up Gods have dark forces behind the puppet strings, who don't allow any focus on mankind. They force man only to focus on non-existing entities, only to distract and restrict humanity from the focus on themselves. There is no way dark forces of religions will allow man to really know his extreme capabilities. Because if man focused his consciousness on only mankind he would not need any illogical controlling Gods. So religion does not allow any other focus on anything but God/hell, etc, and they restrict any of today's new findings or new found understandings, modern technology, etc. Even mistakes in language transfer isn't allowed to be corrected back into bibles, how come?

    So all your ancestors believe these biblical text mistakes as actual truths, and so will your followers to come. Ancient books that were written in days of slavery are not going to supply today's needs to advance man into his new advanced future culture. Who in their right mind would remotely think ancient books will bring whats needed in modern day 2010? Think out loud so you can hear yourself say something that unbelievably ridiculous.

    The bible restricts advancements from happening with the aid of pathetic preachers cherry picking only their select jig saw puzzle scripts of fear, to further keep humanity within it's invisible Gods controlling grasp. Bibles have not one method annd don't supply any instructions, or no devices to further man into his new advanced future culture. The bible abruptly restricts any advancing, and demands man to obey only a non-existing entity. How 2010 does that sound? This God is an offender, of man- the victim.

    So much evil has transpired from religions & bibles and applied to today's society, it's within society and man has become one with it, and is very comfortable within it. Dark forces enjoy their success, your a perfect example of spreading this illogical ancient biblical wrath onto man. Becoming a human being and bringing as much peace to each day as possible, and enjoying what abundantly wonderful place creation has supplied for us, the harmony of kindness within humanity alone is creations only intention.

    Seeking outside of humanity for any sort of help you will only find evils, that make every attempt to control you. Awaken to truth, and look around you at what religions do to ruin and restrict mankind's natural path to his peaceful freedom of lifes happiness. If all of mankind focused their energy of consciousness within humanity alone we could positively evolve as one human race. Without those outside biblicial Gods and controlling forces demanding control, using supernatural silliness, and fear.

    The darker forces who bring you your invisible God have a destructive course long ago planned to create man to enslave himself. Look outside at it unfolding in front of your eyes. Question those who think they were made by something that does not exist, that's absurd! It's 2010, awaken into today's world. Lead with a logical mind, or follow the herd into a non-existing world of religious deceptions. Huge difference between knowing truth, and being told into believing truth.

  277. Kurrrt

    Are not those of sin belong only to the religious?

  278. Ben

    @ Kurrt

    Avoid copying and Pasting!

    Whatever the case may be - one day the truth will be known. Unfortunately, it will be too late for you. Wait for a shock when you breath your last here on earth. That is the day you will wish to have never been born. Anguish awaits you because it is a dreadful thing to fall in the hands of God especially if you have denied His existence.

  279. Vlatko

    "Whatever the case may be - one day the truth will be known. Unfortunately, it will be too late for you. Wait for a shock when you breath your last here on earth. That is the day you will wish to have never been born. Anguish awaits you because it is a dreadful thing to fall in the hands of God especially if you have denied His existence."

    Interesting remarks @Ben.

    Do you realize that by saying what you've said you discard the beliefs of all other believers in the world (70% of the total population on Earth) and of course according to you they will face anguish and they will wish to have never been born. Isn't that open hatred to the rest of humanity that doesn't believe in your God. What if Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc. are right and you're wrong? Logically on the D-day you'll have to burn in their hell.

    You just took one side and you are afraid of the option that you might be wrong. If that isn't the case why do you bother presenting a bitter defense for your God?

  280. Ben

    @Vlatko

    Thanks for hinting on a very sensitive issue concerning those of other beliefs & faith.

    Unless there is a change in what Jesus said, then indeed everyone else that has rejected Him will not enjoy His gift of eternal life regardless of whether one is a Buddhist, Mohamedan, Shintoist,Hindu, Confucious, name it.It is not the belief that matters.It is whether whom you believe in can offer you life Eternal.Indeed all these mentioned people did not promise any eternal life because they had no capacity to offer it. They lacked the divinity to do it. Jesus was devine.Jesus is the Only one through which every human goes to Heaven. As for those who lived before Jesus, God alone knows how they will be treated as i cannot speculate what is not written down in the Bible.Jesus is the ONLY way, the truth and the LIFE. He proved this beyond reasonable doubts when He rose from the dead. It is only a person with no capacity to reason that would follow someone who is still in the grave.I would not risk my life to that level. You are free to believe it or discard it as lies but one day you will know the truth.Should Jesus delay come back again as He promised and find you alive, still you will die and go to Him for accountability. There is no way out. Even when Mohamed died, he faced Him for accontability.Mind you that age of accountability matters. This might well imply that all children of atheists and unbelievers in Jesus have an automatic entry to His Glory in heaven at death.
    John 14:6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

    Jesus ' mission on earth was of no joke. He made it categorically clear in Matthew 7:13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell[a] is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. Do you see the word MANY. Numbers do not matter to God. If they mattered, he would have spared those of ancient days from the catastrophic flood that engulfed the whole world only to save Noah and his family. He would have also spared Sodom and Gomorah. He also most destoyed the people of Ninevah when he sent there Jonah to warn them of their wickedness. Thank God they repented and he spared them.(Read the Bk of Jonah). He will therefore not fail to keep His promise when he said that He is the ONLy way to heaven.

    It is your human mind that makes you think that God cannot destroy whoever has deliberately refused to believe in Jesus. By the way, Jesus was/is God. God the creator came in the person of Jesus Christ and Jesus Himself claimed to be so. Read the whole chapter of John.

    Jesus took it to another level when he declared in Mark 16:15-16
    15 And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. 16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

    Observe carefully the last sentence .Do you see that whoever has rejected Jesus is under condemnation already? Could you be among them? This leaves no room for debate whether any other way apart from the way of Jesus is right or wrong. It is obvious that every other faith in another person or belief apart from Jesus is WRONG.They are sincerely Lost. Period! May God open your eyes.

  281. Achems Razor

    HA,HA, Because according to @Ben:

    Who is an insignificant carbon based unit from the perspective of size of the size of the universe, that has been here as long as a Neutrino colliding with a hydrogen Atom. An insignificant flash, figures he has the pipeline to "GOD"!! and that everything was made just for him! An Illusion of grandeur!!?? As with all religee's!!

  282. Vlatko

    @Ben you've said nothing, except that you believe in a God that condemns %70 of the total population on Earth. The worst part is that you feel good about it.

  283. D-K

    @Vlatko:

    Copious amounts of nothing indeed. Oxymorons are fun, non-sequitors are a pain, though..

  284. Kurrrt

    More script from bibles. wow. Does modern society really need the use of ancient direction? Will it only produce ancient ideals from way over 500 years ago? The mention of God keeps the burning question, just exactly "who" or what the heck are they all talking about? Even commenter's want to play God and leave some added Divine Godly threats upon those who even comment. What for? For followers to enjoy? I'm not knocking anyone focusing their blind faith into an empty sky, and mentioning someone whom there is no existence. So be it. I just think it's the biggest distraction mankind ever made for himself. So, mans focus on his conscious ability goes further ignored, and whoever the Divine Holiness God is gets it's focus instead. Those who brought your hell are being allowed much further in their success. Never said I was an expert. I only see with my own eyes what happens when man seeks some thing outside of humanity, and what man finds there. Actually what they do find should stay outside of humanity is my thought to share, it's just a comment, I'm not an expert, and I don't really see one here either. My focus is far away from ancient script and beyond 500 year old books that instruct terms to illogical for today's standards. (Better kept as a history book or supernatural novel)
    What future creativity can one offer from those controlled and feared by a man made written book? In which paid scribes wrote of a non human invisible God, who demands the murder of cities and children and threatens with hell to obey only one. But loves only it's followers, and wants every other religion put to death.(does that sound like a ruling dictator wrote it?) Perhaps an expert knows why those follow such beliefs in modern day. Maybe these dark religious ones behind it all know you more then you know yourself. And know exactly how your going to respond to being controlled, and now you have become comfortable within it's rein, along with Michael Jacksons tiny mouse.
    *Be well, and have the time of your life everyday!

  285. Ben

    @ Vlatko

    I have never and will never feel good because people have chosen to reject Jesus as the Only Saviour of mankind. I pray for the lost everyday.

    I also spread the Good News of the Gospel through evangelism. I have also prayed for you before i posted this comment so that the cover of spiritual blindness may be removed from your eyes in order for you to see.

    I note that your 70% figure is with a touch of exaggeration. I don't think that the lost globally add up to this number.Whatever the number, it is going to be terrible for them.

  286. Joe_nyc

    Ben

    You make a passionate stance here and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.

    Can you give us your thought on Luke 21:32.

    I been wrestling with this verse for some time now and just can't make heads nor tails out of it.

  287. Vlatko

    There is no exaggeration @Ben. Christianity holds 33% of the population. Further more, the sect you belong to, Evangelism (Protestant Christian theological stream) holds one tiny part of those 33%.

    Check your stats and do the math. The fact: Lot of people in the world disagree with you when it comes to faith and you condemn them through your faith. Having said that why do you think you're on the right track? Have you ever thought of that?

  288. Ben

    Joy_nyc

    Thanks for taking time to read the comments. Iam not an expert in Bible interpretation because i also learn new things every time iam reading it.

    Iam glad you have quoted from one of my fevourite chapters, where Jesus was provoked by His disciples to unveil to them the details of when shall the destruction take place(Vs 6) and the signs of his Coming in Glory.The verse you quoted (Vs 32)was almost the conclusion of the story to the disciples after Jesus had cautioned them to be "alert" ,to keep on "Guard and watchful ",to constantly be on the look-out as there will be a danger of some that will be completely caught off-guard and that day "comes on them unexpecedly.".

    The generation that Jesus referred to was the one that would witness the things He told His disciples happening.It could not have been the generation of His disciples because the things He told them did not occur during their time.In otherwords, "...this generation that will witness these things i have told you will not pass away before all of them (things)have been fulfilled..."I have paraphrased it for simplicity. Vs 32..."this generation..." is the generation "that sees" these things occurring. It was said figuratively

    Joe-I want us to go back in time -1 AD -and build an imaginaly picture of Jesus with His disciples on the Mt of Olives.Then after telling the the whole story from Vs 6,He says to them,(again paraphrased),"Yet this race and family of Abraham shall not be rooted out; it shall survive as a nation, and be found as prophesied, when the Son of man shall be revealed."

    Stay Blessed

  289. Joe_nyc

    Ben

    How and when do you decide that a verse in the bible was written metaphorically (you used figuratively) or literally?

    I have studied bible all my life. I still haven't got a clue.

  290. Joe_nyc

    Ben

    i.e.

    When JC (hope you don't mind, I been using JC ever since Mel Gibson first used interchangeably to refer to Jim Caviezel and Jesus Christ) walked on water are we suppose to accept this figuratively or literally?

    My naive interpretation would be that perhaps the water represents sin and JC is walking on top of the sin to save drowning mankind. And JC never literally walked on water - and we all know that is physically impossible.

  291. Ben

    Joy_nyc

    A figure of speech is a use of a word that diverges from its normal meaning or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it such as a metaphor, simile, or personification.(Wikipedia Defn)

    Going by the above definition, i think Vs 32 doesnot qualify to have been used figuratively. I therefore withdraw the statement. As for now, let us understand that since the things told by Jesus to His disciples never occurred in their generation including His 2nd Coming back to Earth, He meant a generation that would be living at the time.This is the generation that would not pass away before all He had told His disciples on Mt. Olive was fulfilled.

    There is no any other interpretation one can attach to Jesus walking on water.This was actual and physically witnessed by His disciples just like no any other miracle Jesus performed can be interpreted in another way.We can only learn lessons from them but they occurred and were written in the Bible as were performed.The chronological order of events leading to the actual happening of the miracle testifies to this explanation.Consider the steps through which water was turned into wine in John 2:1-11.The mother of Jesus cautions them(servants) to obey whatever her son tells them,the number of containers were 6 water pots,JC instructs that they all be filled up with H2o,then JC,again, instructs that they take some to the (MC)Master of Ceremony after when he tested, called the Bridegroom putting him to task as to why he kept the best wine to be served last.By this time the MC didnot know that JC had changed H2o to Wine.

    As you can see from the above story, there is no way one can interprete it in any other way apart from the way it was told.Likewise, JC floating on H2o to the amazement of His disciples was actual to the point that one of His disciples (Peter)Matt 14:22-33 made a request to JC to join HIm. Peter ,indeed, succeeded at first but fear of sinking brought his success to an end only to be saved bu JC. The lesson we can learn here is that we should always focuss our eyes on Jesus no matter the weight of the troubles we face.

    In many aspects, Jesus is beyond comprehension and description. He is over and above our natural intellect and understanding. Because we cannot figure out how He walked on water doenot mean that He never did it. He was/is extra ordinary human because taken to a more higher level, Jesus came as God the Creator who wanted to show Himself to us. Because God is omnipotent, He had to lower Himself to the same equal footing with man in order for the latter to understand Him.The only way you can understand the way an ant(insect) behaves is to become like an ant itself.By this you will know how ants do communicate to each other and yet they are presumed to be blind.You would know how they come to move at night with no eyes.This is what God did exactly. He had to become human in order for the human race He created to understand Him. Jesus came as a Creator and so no natural mind of any human can reason and prove his miracles scientifically.It is simply a waste of time for any human to try to debate How Jesus was burried,and later appeared in Human form again.My concern is that He is going to come back again when many are still puzzled and trapped in a cycle of trying to prove how He performed His miracles.Unfortunately, this will be too late for them. That is why i chose to accept Him by Faith. Our brains and their capacity to reason articulately and come out with concrete answers are LIMITED. The maker of a 2GB data storage device set it at that limit. One cannot store data meant for 4GB capacity on 2GB. Likewise, God, being the Maker of a Human brain gave it a LIMIT in understanding Him. God made sure that he equipped with the Human Brain all the attributes and abilities it requires for us to use to understand Him. He also gave us the greatest gift of choice. Man can chose to accept Him or reject Him. God was merciful enough not to force us to Him.That is why Eternal Life is a gift. Whoever rejects the gift will have to suffer the consequences of eternaly living without it.The mind set of a human brain is that once man dies,that is the end and there is now way such a body can come back to life.This was the same puzzling question in one of God's servants Job.
    Job 14:14 If a man dies, will he live again? But this puzzling question was solved many years later at the appearance of Jesus. JC was all-knowing. He knew exactly how he was going to die, the purpose for His mission on earth, and predicted is 2nd coming. Let us wait for Him patiently. Amen?

    John 11:25-26

    25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" No ordinary person can make such an outragious claim. Woe unto me if i donot believe in Jesus Christ

    Col 1:16-17
    For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

    John 1:10-14

    10 He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. 12 But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13 They are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God.

    14 So the Word became human[d] and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness.[e] And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

    Rather than trying to find out how Jesus did His miracles with no answer, let us marvel at His greatest offer of a gift of Eternal Life that He promised to all those that would meekly and humbly accept Him by faith.

  292. Achems Razor

    Is it only me? but I get so d@mn irritated reading this fairytale mumbo-jumbo from the likes of @#Ben: no words can describe!

    Will their ever come a time when all this religion fairytale circular thinking comes to an end so the human race can set its sights to all that science has to offer, there is an vast sea of unlimited potential to be discovered in our, and all universes, dimensions etc: Ad infinitum:

  293. Randy

    The Book of Randy; Passages Willow and Cloud:

    "For Randy said, 'shut the hell up you christians, or Randy will eat you!"

    For Randy loves the taste of christian meat. OH! The flavor of it!

  294. Vlatko

    What is going on with you @Randy? For the last two-three days you want to eat flash and brains. You're mentioning this everywhere allover the site. Is everything OK there?

  295. Kurrrt

    7 mil people on the planet each his own opinion and choices either way. Praying to an empty sky does exactly what? Maybe it stops mans process, great changes in the mass consciousness from being accomplished. Human conscious focus being misused by praying into space, chanting, and other occult dark practice. Now the challenge comes to those who desire to be the instruments of changing the negative plans for the destiny of this planet. What good does Jesus history stories going to do for man entering future culture? The God and Jesus inside of peoples heads is the only place you'll find them. Bibles make better collections of history then following what the slave time dictators had paid scribes to copy for them. When Jesus or God makes the newspapers validating existence it will certainly be a miracle all right. Yawnn....

  296. Randy

    @Vlatko

    I am sorry. It is just getting close to Hallowe'en (Samhain) and I want to eat flesh...

    Or perhaps, defile corpses.

    I'm just sayin'

  297. D-K

    Perhaps Randy has been watching too much classic horror, possibly a Romerothon?

  298. Randy

    Thank you @Vlatko, for your concern, though!

    While I run through a graveyard and fill myself on christian meat!

    I am a ghoul!

  299. Randy

    @D-K

    Christopher Lee/Hammer films...

    Enough said...

  300. Charles B.

    Dr. Randy: Brain eating and eating Christians sounds a tad demonic to me . . . . I have a cure for that! We just finished a really good revival meeting here in korea (lasted past Midnight). I tell ya man, you can be stil be free . . . . .

    Just saying!

  301. D-K

    @Charles:

    Being free =/= living in subordinance. Matter of fact, it's about as far removed from being free as one might get. One could even say that it is the opposite of being free.

    You religious people and your silly philosophic inconsistancies..

  302. Charles B.

    P.S. I preach on Sunday the 31st of October. I think I'll speak over "Reverse the Curse" if you'd like a copy of my manuscript, just let me know.

    Oh, and Dr. Randy, you'll be on my mind in and in my prayers tonight and on that day as well, if I remember so, which I most likely will.

    I'm excited!

  303. Randy

    Look at D-K's big, massive brain... while he teaches Charles B.

    Oh goodness, I think I drooled on my keyboard...

    D-K with your big brains... come over to Uncle Randy, he has something to whisper to you...

  304. Charles B.

    D-K: I wasn't going to answer you post, but a thought just occured to me; a lot of people do have what is called a "religious spirit" (expecially former Christians that know better). This is a demonic spirit that substitute religious practice for a relationship with Jesus Christ. I just watched a testimony of man delivered of one just a half hour ago. (Yes, it was a litteral demon and a litteral deliverence) session. I can give link if you'd like to watch it.

    Anyway, I don't want you to confuse bondage to a religious spirit with freedom in Chist Jesus. The two are litterally as opposite as night and day as one is of the Devil, and the other is only found in God.

    Peace to you and good night. It's late.

  305. Randy

    @Charles B.

    "A TAD demonic..." Sweetheart, I am the demon you fear!

    Also, I LOVE THE DEAD!

  306. D-K

    @Charles B:

    I see, I just felt like pointing out that one cannot logically "be free" and adopt a religious paradigm at the same time. Oxym0ron and all that..

  307. Charles B.

    D-K I truly believe that you cannot experience any kind of true freedom apart from service to God. "Whom the Son sets free is free indeed" is the verse that comes to my mind. Bondage to so many things take place apart from God's freedom: sex, money, power, drugs, demonic entities, etc.

    We really see 180 degrees differently on this issue!

    Dr. Randy: You're no demon . . . but influenced for sure (as are many many people . . . some more than others).

    Let me ask you one question. When you were a "Christian" in highschool, did you really truly believe? Were you "born again" as the old saying goes? The thought just occured to me that perhaps you were following a demonic spirit of "religion" at that time and didn't even know it. I watched a testimony about a young man that basically grew up in church and he gave insight into a spirit of religion is not the same as God's spirit, and actually works to destroy the faith of the person that is influenced by it.

    Just a thought.

  308. Charles B.

    Dr. Randy: I posted a link (in moderation). Check back later, as I really would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

  309. D-K

    @Charles:

    I don't doubt you truly believe it, I'm just pointing out that dedicating one's life to service of someone or something is pretty much the opposite of freedom. Hence oxym0ron.

    Also, what are some examples of demonic entities?

    And lastly, do you consider anyone who isn't religious automatically "bondaged" to sex, money, etc..? As such, do you by extension also believe that anyone who is in fact religious is bondaged to none of these things?

  310. Achems Razor

    You and your demons Charles!! I think I will go and join Randy, and romp through the graveyards, do the necrophilia stuff, join the demon cult, and look for some delightful (smart) brains to eat!... no religious brains though! Ugh!!

    Write a sermon for me also.

  311. Charles B.

    D-K: Yes, in fact, everyone that is "non religious" is under some form of bondage, if to nothing more than general sin, as all sin carries the eventual "death penalty" (spiritually speaking), should it not be repented of before you die.

    But, granted, a lot of church-goers can also be in bondage to such things, and should they not repent of them, they too will find themselves a "slave to sin". Perhaps that is why Jesus said that few (and I think very few) do find true life through the narrow way. It is not complicated, but it is narrow (via Jesus' only). God's way is narrow, but it's not oppresive or enslaving as you would have us believe.

    Peace to you.

  312. Charles B.

    Mr. Razor: I know you're being facitious, but actually, all my sermons are meant for the ones that are Christians already for maturity, but I can send you a manuscript if I focus and write one out.

  313. Charles B.

    D-K: I forgot to answer your question. We were created to "serve" something. It's just the way life is. Limits brings true freedom. They did a study where they let small children play anywhere in an open playground and they played only in the center and were frightened to go to the edges. When they fenced in the playground, their area of "play" expanded dramatically to the whole playground inside the fence. We are made to love "fair" bounderies. It's our basic nature. Only in reasonable limitations, such as those found in being a "servant of Christ" can one find true enjoyment in the freedom offered there. Freedom from the condemnation of sin (at least for me) is tremendously "liberating".

    Examples of demonic entities? Well, I read a book that said that there is often a demonic entitiy that is asscociated with nearly every negative or ungodly emotion or action, and they often go by that "name" such as a demonic entity of "greed" or "murder" or self-righteousness" etc. Higher level demonic entities might have actual "names" other than their function. I hope that was helpful.

    Peace to you.

  314. Kurrrt

    Ancient history books tell some unbelievable tall tails all right. The 3rd Jesus miracle doc plays like a good novel. It's amazing how modern people use such ancient stories and hold them as authentic truth. From ancient days of trickery, deceit, and slavery, rape and murder took hold of every ones lives back then, indeed so it appears- as the bible tells me so... It certainly restricts new modern technology findings and rstricts all new understandings from even being acknowledged. Even biblical transfer language errors go uncorrected and believed as truth. Perhaps that's the darker side playing it's course into the enslavement of mankind, something like we witness happening today. We now know the bible is the cause of it. WHEN are all these silly followers of old slave days going to step into the future and stop this twisted silliness? Simply look into your modern TV-news and Sunday newspapers for a God, Heaven, a Hell, or angels. Where are they? Anybody? (Perhaps because the don't exist?) Today when people die we don't see them alive or floating around any more. ha-ha it's so funny what people believe- void of any truth. Or if your told to believe something said to be truth you have no mind or thoughts to choose for yourself? Some folks must not have any other choice then to believe the silliness of non-truths. So be it. The awakened ones are not laughing at the wrath of what religion is unfolding onto mankind. Say something long enough for long periods of time, it just becomes truth? Come now... Not in the eyes of the ones that see these deceptions. Awaken. Focus on the human race as one human race! Void of any of these outside of humanity non-existing entities, they take mans focus away from man himself. Think of reality not supernatural silliness. Good video. Best of life to all---

  315. D-K

    @Charles:

    I see. Raises a few questions though.. With "general sin" you are referring to the default sin attributed to every descendant of Adam, correct? Do you happen to know why this sin transfers across the human race? To me, the only answer I could think of is that it effectively makes everyone a sinner, and thus everyone in need of repentance/religion, which sustains said religion. Seems like a "get 'em while they're young" tactic, any thoughts?

    "God’s way is narrow, but it’s not oppresive or enslaving as you would have us believe."

    That confuses me, with the word "narrow" don't you mean to signify a strict set of guidelines? Guidelines not inherent to human morality? An authorative agent that has you comply to their rules seems oppresive to me, I don't really know how you can look past that, even when given the omnipotence factor as a counterargument.

    "We were created to “serve” something. It’s just the way life is. Limits brings true freedom"

    See that's the problem I have with most religious folk, you cannot reason why you adhere to certain rules simply by citing the rules you adhere to. There is in fact a motive for faith, and it is not the fact that the bible is just a damn good read, it's deeper than that. You cannot accept the fact that you are tainted with original sin within accepting faith first. You can't be lured into faith simply by believing that you are doomed otherwise, it's too simple (and circular).

    "Well, I read a book that said that there is often a demonic entitiy that is asscociated with nearly every negative or ungodly emotion or action, and they often go by that “name” such as a demonic entity of “greed” or “murder” or self-righteousness” etc. Higher level demonic entities might have actual “names” other than their function. I hope that was helpful"

    Why would you accept that nearly every negative influence comes forth from some dark entity? You can't have anything demonic without demons. Do you believe in demons? Why? Please note that if you explain demons exists because of negativity while also being the cause of negativity, you'll fall victim to circular logic. Also, which book and why do you believe its words?

  316. Kurrrt

    Dark forces are hidden, there not the exact visions of the demons you'd see in pictures or in bibles. Not human beings either. One will have to look much deeper. I'm not an expert, but you can hear bits of only their agendas in select biblical text. For they were here on earth before humankind. We are their commodity, aimed for self enslavement as their plan unfolds, as mankind blindly allows in. Once these deceptions are realized and a new focus is on humanity alone, these dangerous outside dark forces will be exposed. They are the ones who make you believe in a God and they also brought you a hell, they are one and the same. The kind advanced ones outside looking in will kindly tell you the same: Focus not on outside forces, for the truth lies within man.... Awaken to a great life, everyday.

  317. Kurrrt

    "Bow down to absolutely no one. Be a human, along with other humans as one human race. Follow no one outside of mankind, the invisible included"... (ManLaw: 101-1)

  318. Kurrrt

    "Mankind must reject with extreme prejudice all outside *dark influence from becoming within the realm of man". (ManLaw: 101-2)

    *Any outside influence is dark, and not out for mans welfare, usually masked as good, a wolf in sheeps clothing.

  319. MsTruNorth

    This documentary overlooked some important events, e.g., Mary Magdalene saw Jesus in the garden outside the tomb ad mistook him for the gardener (because she wasn't expecting to see Jesus alive). she begged the gardener to tell her where he had taken Jesus' body. When the "Gardener spoke and addressed her by name, Mary recognized it was Jesus. Also, the documentary overlooks that Jesus instructed the disciples not to leave Jerusalem for 20 days after his death. When Jesus arrived where the disciples were staying, Jesus knocked on the door, a few disciples answered the door, and in stepped the resurrected Jesus. This is when Thomas examined Jesus' wounds. Jesus then sat and ate and drank with the disciples. The Holy Spirit appeared as a tongue of flame above the head of each disciple after Jesus gentle blew his breath over them. It's no wonder the disciples found their courage after this experience.

  320. MsTruNorth

    This documentary underplays the fact that the Romans had placed guards on Jesus' tomb. The guards had been placed there in case the disciples tried to steal Jesus' boy and make it appear that the prophecy had been fulfilled by Jesus being resurrected. One of the most interesting and untold stories of the resurrection is what happened to these Roman guards. A Roman soldier would be gruesomely put to death for deserting his post. Had the disciples had a skirmish with the Roman guards, overpowered them (unlikely) and stole Jesus' body, the retribution for the disciples would have been quick and nasty. The disciples would have been hunted down and put to grisly death, quite publicly. So we can nix a theory that the disciples overpowered two Roman guards and were allowed to live afterward (only being chastised for preaching Christ's resurrection). Seems more likely that what the disciples say happened when Jesus died on the cross, i.e., the sky darkened during the day, the earth shook, and the curtain in the temple tore in half, did in fact occur in front of his executioners and those taunting him as he died. Had these things actually happened, it might have been easier for the commanders of the two guards to believe them when the guards reported that they were overcome by two angels who came to the tomb and rolled the stone aside. It would be interesting to investigate why these two guards were not disciplined.

  321. Ben

    @MsTruNorth.

    You seem to be a good debator on the issue. However, permit me to ask where you belong.Are you pro-Jesus and do believe in what was written about Him or not? I hope you are not offended by these simple questions

  322. MsTruNorth

    @ Ben

    I'm not a "debater". I simply form my views on the basis of experience and reason. Jesus said that the person who understands the Word is the one form whom it is most difficult for the evil one to steal the Word away from. As a result, my observations in life and the application of common sense and reasoning to what the gospels relate to us has made me from a very early age a committed follower of Christ.

  323. Andy

    I would love to see a similar documentary made me an magician/illusionist of no faith

  324. Andy

    *made by

  325. Kara Kittle

    Sleight of hand...an illusion...which is a lie.

    I don't believe Jesus lied...therefore he did not create illusions...and therefore no sleight of hand.

    One interesting thing to note, Simon the Sorcerer wanted to pay the disciples for the power they had. He wanted the power that Jesus had because it was real.

  326. MsTruNorth

    Kurrt,

    You've referred to Christian faith as "projected hatred" and as "ancient Dark Age knowledge" and then followed up those demeaning and aggressive remarks by saying "I enjoy bringing as much peace to each day as possible, we see what you bring." We can see what YOU bring...hatred, bigotry, and an aggressive intolerance. You have gone way off the natural course of a non-believing person to participate in a discussion of the miracles performed by a man you say you don't even believe existed. Then you post demeaning remarks about the spiritual discipline established by that man, Jesus. All your talk about your desire to bring "as much peace to each day as possible" and any claims at goodwill you make are glaringly hypocritical and disingenuous. We KNOW that you bring...the lies and intolerance on which you hang your life, such as it is. I hope you find true love and respect for all peoples, regardless of whether or not you share their views and beliefs. You'll be a happier man, and less of a risk to to others whose views may not be your own. Most dictators and facist governments have got their footing on the back of the type of aggressive ignorance and intolerance you are championing.

  327. Kurrrt

    How kind of you to bring such a wonderful selection of love towards humanity and sharing your levels of understanding. Are your words the same committed words that Jesus would say? The evidence is quite clear. I hope one day you'll accomplish the desired result of your focused energy. You are certainly blessed with it. Thanks for taking the responsibility of clarifying my simple comments. I'm no expert like you, if this is the space you must occupy, respectfully.

  328. over the edge

    @mstrunorth
    where is your proof of any of this? you are welcome to use the bible as your proof but the bible is full of falsehoods and contradictions. it is not a history book. show me your proof please. and the gospels were originally written in Greek can you shoe any proof that any of the disciples were literate in that language?also the according to christian sites mark was a disciple of peter and never was an eye witness luke was a companion of paul and neither were an eye witness only friends of the disciples please show me where either claims to be an eyewitness

  329. MsTruNorth

    @over the edge What are you referring to when you say "this"?

  330. over the edge

    @mstrunorth
    you make many claims i would say by "this" any proof you have for any of your claims that have sources not found within the bible. if that isn't good enough how about the fact you stated the gospels are eyewitness accounts but they are not as i have stated. some are second or thrid hand or worse

  331. Kurrrt

    Bibles were Not written in ancient Hebrew(?), ok, if you say so, I won't argue or attempt to change anyones belief. Don't matter to me any. My concern are the ones who hold on and attempt to bring those ancient methods of horrible enslavement and invented Gods into the future of mankind, will no doubt further distroy humanity. As you can plainly see. The ugly trail of that I believe needs to stay where it was. In history. After the bible was written it was closed that day. Pathetic people that bring it into our future only makes the rest of us suffer it's horrible wrath. Have fun in modern day with your ancient belief. amen

  332. MsTruNorth

    Kurrt,

    The OT was written in Hebrew. The gospels,when they were dictated by the disciples toward th end of their lives were take down in Greek. I thought an erudite man like yourself would know this. Wherever did you get the notion that the entire Bible was written i ancient Hebrew? Anyway, no matter. The rest of your remarks deserve no response, as they are obviously the spitting spew of ignorance, hatred, and dangerous bigotry. May we all stand on vigilant guard against such dangerous bigots as yourself. May you find God's peace and truth in time, as you learn that it is peace and freedom from fear and anxiety and with these a soundness of mind and spirit that God is extending to us.

  333. Kurrrt

    Again, I'm no expert. When Constantine transfered the old text into the new text and Hans Goutenburg invented the printing press so everyone had a copy of the new testament the old testament language was what? Greek? If you say so. It doesn't matter to me, I simply don't think it's nessary to bring scrips with obey the Lord murdering whole cities and the Lords ok with rape and murder, it's about bringing it into the future thats most disturbing. Your unkind name calling is just fine, perfectly defines who and what you are. It's illogical to find a God that man invented and doesn't exist. Which to me takes a focus away from humanity and aims it into empty space. Heaven and hell are places that your told exist when you die, I believe in life before death. You perfer to be recruited by the Dark Ages so be it. Perhaps your parents forced your belief since baptism, and you probly have no personal free will to think for yourself. Your invisible God restricts new modern findings, for controlling reasons. Humanity cannot evolve into a modern future using Dark Age technology and supernatural silliness. If thats your truth kindly don't share it with me, thank you anyway.

  334. MsTruNorth

    Kurrt,

    You're quite correct, you are no expert. What is also apparent is that you fear God...probably because you are doing something in your life which you know God has warned us off doing. And look what it has brought you to, a very slim distance from transforming yourself into a Nazi-style propagandist or an anti-Christian Stalinist. The rest of your remarks deserve no response, as they are obviously the spitting spew of ignorance, hatred, and dangerous bigotry. May we all stand on vigilant guard against such dangerous bigots as yourself. May you find God’s peace and truth in time, as you learn that it is peace and freedom from fear and anxiety and with these a soundness of mind and spirit that God is extending to us.

  335. MsTruNorth

    over the edge,

    You wrote: "if that isn’t good enough how about the fact you stated the gospels are eyewitness accounts but they are not as i have stated. some are second or thrid hand or worse"

    OK, then YOU tell us who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were. ;)

  336. over the edge

    @mstrunorth
    please don't answer my question with a question all i stated was that mark wrote what peter told him and luke wrote what paul told him neither claimed to be an eyewitness if i am wrong please show me where they stated otherwise.

  337. Kurrrt

    This is the reason that this information has been delibertly destroyed, withheld, or misinterpreted.

  338. MsTruNorth

    over the edge,

    Matthew was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus (Matthew 9:1; 10:1-4) and therefore an eye-witness; he records more of Jesus' teaching concerning God's heavenly kingdom than the other writers, for example the entire Sermon on the Mount.

    Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.

    Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with Paul (Colossians 4:14; Philemon v24). Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely. Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary's extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.

    John was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness (John 19:35); John brings out the spiritual significance as well as recording the practical aspects of Jesus' works and words. John lived to be older than any of the other writers. It is therefore likely that he was familiar with their accounts and wanted to supplement theirs with additional teaching and miracles by Jesus which had a bearing on the situation towards the end of the first century AD.

  339. Dekay

    I forced myself to watch the entire first episode of this so called documentary and found it to be rather boring and uninformative. They only mentioned the loaves and fishes, raising the dead, and walking on water trick eight or nine times........maybe another ten or twelve times would have gotten the point accross. Anyhow I found the comment section to be much more entertaining abeit somewhat alarming. It amazes me that there are so many people who in most other facets of their lives would probably be considered reasonably intelligent, clinging so desperately to a bunch of two thousand year old fairy tales in the hopes that some mysterious Sky Daddy is going to pop in and butter their toast for them. WTF???? Did reality become extinct with the dodo? What kind of monkey urine do some of you people marinate your brain in at night? I've had my suspicions about this Jeezus guy for a long time. He's not reliable. I'm sure i can remember reading in a book somewhere, oh yeah, the one they call the Holy Bible, that he tells his followers [sheep] that wherever two or more are gathered together in his name he would be there. He also says ask and it will be given. You cannot tell me that somewhere during the course of more than two thousand years that there have not been large groups of well intentioned bible believing God fearing Christian people who have prayed for there to be peace on earth. My question is what the hell is he waiting for? Is he upset because the God union only gives him one day off a week? Well he knew that when he took the job. Hell I get faster service at Wal Mart even when the store is crowded. We need a serious reality check here people. The world is in a lot of trouble and we are the only ones who can change that. Pray all you want but I don't think God, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or any other deity/supernatural being that we kill people in the name of is going to straighten this mess out, so roll up your sleeves, and let's get busy. I'll do my part if you'll do yours.

  340. Claude Posella

    OK DeKay, ponder this if you will it; God (?) created the
    world we now live in. He then gave the charge to man to run
    while he went and created other worlds. Man, with the best of intentions, has been attempting to establish 'order' in this
    world but seems to have failed miserably [as you so correctly posited]. When God has a few days off He shall
    again visit His 'Creation' and once again set things right.
    However, this time He will not turn it over to Man to
    oversee (having learned from his prior mistake]. Happy New
    Decade DeCaye. klaudenhemet-

  341. MsTruNorth

    Claude,

    Adding to what you've already said, is what the Bible itself says about the ways of the world:

    Ecclesiates 9:11 Again I saw that under the sun (under the ways of the world) the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, not favour to men of skill; but time and chance happens to them all. Like fish which are taken in an evil net, and like birds which are caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared at an evil time, which it suddenly falls upon them.”

  342. Dekay

    @ Claude Posella

    I see from your comment (having learned from his prior mistake], that this God character is not infallable, that's not what I heard, however it does bring a few quotes to mind from some people who have put it much more eloquently than I could so I thought I would share them.

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?”

    Epicurus

    But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

    Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. George Carlin

    Civilization will not attain perfection
    until the last stone
    from the last church
    falls on the last priest.
    emile zola

  343. Achems Razor

    I realize that this doc. is mostly for all the little religee's when I say little I mean small minds, I say this to no one in particular, so can not be guilty of any "ad hominem " attacks. but since most of the religee's with impunity invade "all" our science docs will again reiterate that all that there Jesus is, is a worship of the "SUN" the so-called Gods "SON", the "SUN", the giver of light, who walks on the water, the Suns rays walk on the water, and that your Jesus is the latest deity in a long progression of deities, starting from antiquity.

    Holy Batman! and Go Spiderman! my gods are just as real as your gods. Hmmm? And my Gods never take a day off!

  344. MsTruNorth

    Lu 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

    1Jo 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
    1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

    Lu 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Lu 11:35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.

    1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

  345. D-K

    Ridiculous baseless assertions aren't things to be pondered.

    "He who deals in mental excrement, goes nowhere and ends up smelling of poo"

  346. Achems Razor

    Numbers 31:17-18...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    From your "good book"??

  347. D-K

    @AR:

    To be fair, any book that commands me to keep all the women to myself is a good book.

    Refute thát.

  348. Achems Razor

    D-K:

    If you want to kill everything as mentioned, and the reward is all the the little girls, well, then you need help.

    But if you were just joking, or did not mean it in that context, then disregard what I just said!

  349. D-K

    The fact that there's even a hint of a doubt whether or not I was joking tells me you meet the wrong kind of people, man.

    Religee's getting to you, Achems?

  350. Hesus

    @ MsTruNorth
    No wonder there are so many wars around with ppl like you trodding on this planet. Yea its ok to kill someone as long as you are spreading "gods" agenda. You poor feeble minded fool.

  351. Kurrrt

    The Dark Age is history and also it's books, including all it's various involvements. If it's all brought into mans future so will it's involvements. Would the wheel still be embraced if those need bring the days before it? Dictators paid those bible scribes to specificlly not allow or enter any new modern understandings. Brought only by those who embrace the Dark Age and non existing Gods. For these reasons we see today that restrict advancement. Which humankind desperately needs to evolve. We yet suffer this wrath brought by those who forcefully set forth a dark future for mankind, and don't even realize their doing it. There are very kind and harmless methods involved with advancing, leaving no ancient threat or hate or unkind act what so ever. Simply awaken to it by using pure thought that hasn't been forcefully corrupted. Have a great day everyday of your life.

  352. Oli

    I'm tired of all the religious loonies posting their small-minded crap on here. Go crawl under a rock with your stupid bible - jesus is a myth, just like everything else in that fairy tale storybook of yours!

  353. Connie

    @ Just me tuning in to this cell block. I hear its a bit overcrowded :-)

  354. D-K

    Hahaha, I was reading the email notifications and sure enough after some heated discussion, enter Godwin's law.

    Priceless.

  355. Dekay

    @ MsTruNorth

    I will say this in your defense. You are persistent, but then again, so are mosquitos, gnats, and diarrhea.
    How is it that you cannot see the venom in your words when you label people as bigots and hate mongers simply because
    they have a differing opinion from yours? I refer you to a couple of passages from your good book that you seem
    fond of quoting from: Matthew 7:1-2 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall
    be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast
    out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    In your post #363 you posted: 1Jo 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
    1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
    Again, I'd like to refer you to your good book: Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
    and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
    Now I am by no means a scholar of anything,let alone anything more than of average intelligence. I'm just using
    some common sense and reasoning as you yourself have stated in a previous post. Having said that, I see a bit
    of a conflict here. In fact i'd say it is quite the paradox. It is my understanding that where love is present hate cannot
    exsist. Surely this could not be one of those contradictions that people who quote from the bible say it contains none of?

    In another of your posts, in regard to certain wars not being about religion, you told another poster to
    Try cracking open a few history books. May I suggest the same to you? Hmmmm let's see, The Spanish Inquisition
    comes to mind..... and then, there were the lovely Crusades. These were about religion, or were they just a
    misunderstanding over how to commit rampant genocide on people who just happened to have a different belief
    system than they did? Either way, the result was the same..... a whole lot of dead people in the name of God!

    If you are comfortable with yourself while worshiping a God who lays claim to being the creator of such a thing
    as evil, I am saddened for you, but please, don't spew your venomous hatred on those who have a different
    opinion. If you need verification for the aforementioned statement you can find it... guess where?

    In the "good book"! Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
    I the Lord do all these things.

    Now doesn't that just make you all warm and fuzzy? You can't blame it on Satan anymore... unless of course
    Satan and God happen to be one in the same.

    In the future try not to argue for the bible with the bible. More often than not you'll lose.
    It must be all of those contradictions that aren't in there. Go figure.

  356. Kurrrt

    Very good point sir, indeed. Amen to that, yup.

  357. IDrinkYourMilkshake

    Right. I quit on this thread about a third of the way down. All I will say, assuming a woman called Mary gave birth to a boy named Jesus, is: MARY WAS NOT A VIRGIN. I don't care if it is written. Anyone can write anything, it don't make it so! Look:

    IDrinkYourMilkshake is the most handsome and talented man in the history of the world ever.

    IT'S WRITTEN!!! IT'S WRITTEN!!!!!!! It's written by someone with an interest in having those kind of rumours repeated.

    VIRGIN BIRTHS ARE IMPOSSIBLE! Like it or not, Mary got RATTLED! Joseph went to town on that fiiiiiine ass.

    No woman, possibly up until the development of artificial insemination, can get pregnant without having sex.... unless Joseph wanked into his hand and rubbed it onto her sopping wet gash - technically it is possible to become pregnant this way. Sperm can find its way.... yknow... up there.

    Either way, Mary got pumped full of Joseph hot jizz.

  358. Kurrrt

    Bits of truth comes in all forms to enlighten, even if it's spilled by a drink and rattled by a historical figure, But I just thought Mary was the extraterrestrial. -I'm not an expert)

  359. water and light=life

    religion stinks. fact

  360. BDA

    can you imagine if jesus or muhammed were never born. there would be so much injustice and suffering in the world and people would be immoral and killing each other because they haven't read the bible or the koran....oh, wait a minute.

  361. who_me_yeah_you

    Erm, dont mean to get anyones' backs up but, 2:46, large crowds of sick people following Jesus proves that he was a healer? Surely that should be large crowds of healthy people following him prove the miracle of healing. Select individuals healed then crowds of sick following, hoping for the same are not proof of anything other than large numbers of desperate people.

  362. Dinyo Lorry

    I think that the idea of putting on this documentary was very ludicrous!
    Don't we understand that Jesus was, and is God? How are we foolishly trying to find how did He create the miracles? Well, it would be of pivotal importance that we know that Jesus said that He can do nothing in His own will, instead of the authority and power that God The Father bestows upon Him. In addition, we talk about the miracle of Elijah and Moses, trying to compare it with Jesus', but though the organizers of this documentary claim to be Christains, they still don't comprehend that the miracle of Elijah and Moses, was done by the power of the Spirit bestowed upon them by JESUS. It is only through Jesus that all the miracles of the prophets were realized. Jesus is God, as He said - the Creator of you and I (John chapter one). And you and I can do these miracles, in particular, walking on water if you and I have accepted God the Son(Jesus) as our personal Saviour - but these miracles are not necessary in our days...for the purpose of all godly miracle is bringing souls to Christ : our One and Only Saviour, God and Redeemer. Accept Him today my friend, believing in everything that is written in the only book of life (the Holy Bible) and not doubting anything. Everything written in the entire Bible is true; if onne is true, then all is true, and vice-versa. Once more, do not doubt anything written in that Book, for there is no other Book like it. Remember, it was because of doubting that Peter sank after starting to walk on the water.
    Sorry if I offend anyone, but what I wrote is truth - you shall speak the truth, says our Creator and Saviour and it shall set you free!

  363. Jun Cabida Cantorna

    No one cares whether jesus's miracles really took place or not. we, catholics, believe that jesus is capable of doing anything that's why hes called a GOD. Religion is religion and religion and science don't mix, like OIL and WATER.

  364. gsjikwblao

    I have read most of the 100 comments here on this documentary and would like to comment on the comments, not the documentary because I did not watch it.
    All of the contradiction that people claim exists in the Bible exists only in misinterpretations that we are driven by our nature to embrace. When that nature changes in a completely natural process of evolution, we are driven to discover a completely new interpretation that eliminates all the contradiction that many of us were trying to defend.
    Fully detailed, and supported by established scientific facts, this interpretation, not subject to personal agenda, is established in the book called "The Third Measure of Meal". A very brief description is as follows:
    !3.7 billion years ago a perfect binding, motivational force generated, born of it's own nature, a diametrically opposed motivation that is facilitated by physical existence. By this very same nature this creating force is drifting back to the single, non-physical point of perspective from which it expanded in the creation of the necessary, diametrically opposed motivation. This is because a binding motivation, being perfect for this very reason, cannot exist (or function) as such without something to bind. In compressing back to the single point from which it expanded, it automatically produces a human race of an increased conviction of conscience, the very change in our evolving nature by which the new interpretation of the Bible emerges which eliminates all the contradiction that is maintained in previous interpretations . According to the new interpretation,and the science of human psychology, hateful and division-justifying people will be driven by fear to avoid the implications of this new understanding. This is the very nature that left us stalled on conventional and contradictory interpretations prior to the present time.

  365. Obugi

    Typical African.

    Europeans came to your country, conquered it and enslaved your people. Instead of fighting back, our ancestors decided to curry favor with the new masters by adopting their religion - Christianity.

    That's the ONLY reason you're a Christian.

    Look at a map of Nigeria - I think that's your country.

    All the areas first conquered by Europeans are Christian.

    The areas first conquered by Arabs are Islamic.

    Ethnic groups that suffered colonialism at the hands of BOTH Islamic and Christian conquerors are - YEP, YOU GUESSED IT - a mixture of both faiths. The Yoruba of are the biggest and most obvious example.

    Never mind me though......

  366. Vic Seay

    The concept of this program is ludicrous! A Christian magician is going all over the Holy Land doing parlor tricks and trying to prove his Savior was NOT a magician? Who thought this up? LOL!! The way I see it...if you believe Jesus is God then you KNOW how He did it.....HE'S GOD...and if you don't believe...then the "Christian Criss Angel" is not going to persuade you...this is as dumb as hell....LMAO!

  367. gsjikwblao

    There is most definitely another interpretation that one can attach to the description of "Jesus walking on water"

    To "walk on water" is to be incapable of drowning. "Drowning" is a reference to the capacity of our individual perspectives, generated by the separate physical bodies that we engage through the processing of information through our five physical senses, to motivate us, driven by fear, that we must respond to hate with more of the same or others will see us as being easy to take advantage of. When our convictions of conscience evolves into an increased sensitivity state, it drives our intellects to discover this pattern and the interpretation of the Bible that records it, entirely in figurative language, further strenghtening a person to remain under the inconvenient influence of love while moving through the midst of others who justify hate in return for hate.

    This common reaction to indifference or hatred, is the net effect of separate perspective (intellectual reasoning) as it wars against unifying perspective (convicting conscience).

    The concept of "drowning" maintains this same meaning throughout the entire old and new testaments.

    "Walking on water" and Jesus "awakening" from his "sleep" in the "hinder part of the ship" and calming the sea (removing the danger of drowning) are both references to an evolutionary movement from a base-level convicting conscience (the preaching of John) to a convicting conscience of increased influence (the preaching of the Christ)

    This is part of an interpretation of the Bible that eliminates all the contradiction that is retained in conventional interpretations that consider the Bible to be descriptions of physical events that occurred long ago.

  368. gsjikwblao

    The entire Bible is relating information entirely with figurative language. Even if some of the events happened exactly as they are described, the reason those events were recorded in the Bible is because the printed words describing them are also describing a process of evolution in which the human race is engaged.

    It is significant to note that this is the only way to eliminate contradiction in the Bible.

  369. Jacob Heerema

    Why not just believe He did this stuff? He is still doing things we don't understand. He leads, He heals, He guides, He delivers from evil, He gives new life, He reveals, He enlightens, He ....well no room enough can describe what He still does!

  370. Jacob Heerema

    I am so happy I see Jesus NOT as 'religion' ... in fct he condems religion too! Just read the stuff and you'll see that He isn't religion..... He is alive and well. No rules, no chanting, no incense, no money, no religious prayers and other junk.... He is alive! And lives in me....... that is relation, NOT religion. Religion stinks, relation smells good, really good!

  371. Achems_Razor

    @Jacob Heerema:

    He doesn't do bugger all, crazy religee's.

  372. over the edge

    @Jacob Heerema
    "Just read the stuff and you'll see that He isn't religion" read what stuff? you mean the books written created and passed on by religion?

  373. Brady Gaisser

    At least this video isnt slanted at all....

  374. David

    Don't need to watch it. The REAL MIRACLE of Jesus is the story itself. Doesn't even matter if he really existed. There was a man who could have escaped but who didn't because He was WILLING to die to teach the world compassion. In a time when people were being slaughtered in the arenas all across the Roman Empire. That's enough Miracle for me.

  375. Cineplex

    because he obviously hasn't done anything for those people who are contradicting you.

  376. fender24

    God's kingdom is not in such a way that one can see it with your eyes. No one will be able to say: Look, here it is, or: Where is it. For the kingdom of God is within you "
    I believe Jesus rejects this idea of ??God out there or God up there, and refers to the soul.
    Kingdom of God is there all the time. It is there as a level of consciousness. When we sleep, for example, our consciousness on a different level than when we are awake.
    Not to mention if we drink alcohol, we get a reduced level of consciousness and is not by "our senses" our five senses do not work
    as they do normally, we are not able to understand as much as we do when we are sober. When Jesus speaks of God's Kingdom "inside" us, we are talking about a level of consciousness that we are not usually awake on - but that we can be. For within ourselves, we are in contact with the divine, even though we usually do not know it. Wake up from the daily and decreased consciousness and become aware of the divine in you that we are in contact with the creative force in the universe. In the innermost of us, we are all associated with the divine. "To be saved" - that is to spot his own greatness.

    I believe Jesus had a higher level of consciousness and was able to perform his miracles, we can do the same things today with technology. Who says we need them?

  377. Jorge Mendez

    Hi, fender24 I was trying to find where it says we have god within us unless we are worshiping him in spirit and not in flesh, I could not find where "god's kingdom is inside us" we found were it says we are the temple. thanks

  378. okieok

    Just because great crowds followed him means absolutely NOTHING!!! The Buddha's and deities of all religions are reported to do the same. Hell, look how many fools follow the likes of Benny Hinn and the other parasites who couldn't fix a hang nail. Desperate people will cling to any hope whether false or not.

    Also, to date, there is not one source of historical evidence that jesus ever lived nor any of the other bible patriarchs. If moses never existed then the entire foundation of the ot and nt is also non-existent. Good grief, will people ever wake up?

    If any of you want to become rich and famous just present to the world any proof outside the bible that these people existed. You will be the first in history to do so. Ever wonder why the church stopped praising the dead sea scrolls? After cave 4 was discovered and the church read what was written in them they went on a 60 year coverup and refused to release them to other translators. We now have the truth and your preachers/parasites will never tell you. Many of the original translators became alcoholics, left the catholic church and could never tell why because they had all been forced to sign a 'non-disclosure contract' for life. Just like the lying church isn't it?

  379. okieok

    The word 'jew' did not even appear in any bible until the 18th century. The hebrew alphabet had no letter 'j' until then. The original word was iewes and it meant anyone that lived in Judea, no matter what race or religion. You have been had. There is no such thing as a jew and never was. Even Josephus wrote that the so-called jews were the Hyksos who had invaded lower Egypt. They were a vicious and brutal bunch of criminals. Today they are known as zionist. The book of Revelation calls them "those who say they are jews/iewes but are not jews/iewes but lie. They are of the synagogue of satan."

    That pretty much describes them then as well as today.

  380. WilliamMarmol

    So the Jesus story was a copy of the Elijah story?

    Is it true that the first known writing about Jesus was about 70 years after his supposed death and it was done by Greeks, who all wrote different stories about him?

    I watched "Religulous" and it described how Christianity copied many previous religions so closely that it is almost no different. Any thoughts on this? I don't typically watch religious documentaries.

  381. David

    Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus speak about the existence of Jesus Christ. The Jewish Mishna also mentions Jesus performing miracles (although they attribute it to Satan) nevertheless, they admit his existence.

    Some today have even questioned the holocaust as occuring (Iran President) & that just happened some 60 yrs ago! Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    The Bible is a book of faith not science. It comes down to faith and heart condition. God only gives us enough evidence that a heart of love toward him would respond and beleive. Anything other than that would be science and not faith.

  382. David

    I completely agree with you. Just reading the gospels touches the heart. Also seeing the messianic prophecies from the old testament being fulfilled in Jesus is amazing.

    If it were all fake, and Jesus did not resurrect ...why would the apostles be willing to die for the gospel? Why did the apostles emerge with great zeal & enthusiansm at penetecost? Because Jesus did in fact resurrect thus proving he was the son of God the promised Messiah.

    If therewere no eye witnesses to the resurrection, the New Testament and the gospels would have never survived past the 1st century when they were written.

  383. Austin Slay

    @Dekay49 I applaud your last post.

  384. okieok

    One more time...jeez! All those men you mentioned came after the life of jesus. Everything anyone has ever written was pure hearsay. The Mishna and the Talmud both speak of Jesus Ben Pandira who was born of a harlot. They knew for a fact that this same man was the one who later became the NT god, thanks to the filthly lying RCC.

    There was a holocaust but 6 million jews did not die. The best number we can go on is arouond 70,000 and the post war jewish census has proven that fact as well as the testimony during the war trials. What makes me sick is the real millions that perished who are never mentioned because of the whining lying jew garbage.

    Even the people who wrote and hid the Dead Sea Scrolls knew the OT god was a demon entity and that is why your sorry parasite preachers will never get into that discussion. I sense you are a limp wristed too light in your loafers little sissy who needs a preacher (wizard of oz) to lead you around like a fool.

  385. okieok

    One more little item. The forged passage in Josephus was most likely the work of Eucebious, the great christian forger. He even admitted it was acceptable to lie in order to enhance the scripture. None of the earlier defenders of the 'faith' before him ever mentioned it and they pulled out every trick in the book. Even Origen, who studied Josephus intensely never mentioned it in his famous Contra Celsus, where he tried to convince him jesus really had existed. Any christian with a brain at all will tell you it is a forgery and has been denounced by some of the most famous christian scholars in the world. You don't read much do you? Josephus mentioned James the Just and said he had a brother named Jesus. That is it, period.

  386. okieok

    There is no proof the apostles ever existed either. Why did muslims fly planes into the towers? Christians are not the only ones who are rabid about their beliefs. Some cults burn themselves to death for their gods. Others sacrifice their children as in the OT. All religions have at one time or another been treated with disdain but you goofy fools think only your religion is oppressed. Bull****. You people are the oppressors who march all over the g-damn globe with your x-tian armies carpet bombing innocent people to bring them your rotten religion and demon-ocracy. Your day is coming.

    No eyewitness has ever come forward to talk to a soul about the events in the so-called era of jesus. It is all a concocted myth using several men as models to create your savior. The Essense teacher of righteousness taught the sermon on the mount and many many other things that found their way into you little good book. Read their war scroll and see where the NT book of Revelations came from.

  387. okieok

    You are so full of S#@t it makes me gag.

  388. gsjikwblao

    Don't take such big bites. Chew more slowly. You can't know something to be true if it is not. It is not me that makes you gag. It is your own self. Try to slow down and relax. Take a deep breath. It's only a web-site.

  389. Foza

    what a load of total garbage

  390. robert k

    I just don't believe in miracles. Without proof, it's just a good story thats been written over too many times. The truth magic and lies

Leave a comment / review: