Religious Question

[Texanballer]

Basically everything except the king henry viii statement is incorrect. Jesus apparently wasn't born in December and didn't die at Easter. Even if he did how can it be proven. Also the Romans killed Jesus, why would the disciples say, I know lets name our 'branch' of christianity after the romans.

King Henry the 8th didnt create his own church becuase he could not get an annulment? Why else did he do it? He even had St Thomas Moore killed because he would not bless him in his annulment. According to all of Christianity Jesus was born around Christmas and Died around Easter, thats why its celebrated.

And as for proof, in the bible it has already been done when Jesus resurrected. St Thomas asked for proof that he was real and actually resurrected and Jesus showed him his wounds. So something like that hypothetically happening, proof could be given by Jesus

[Ta Khent]

King Henry the 8th didnt create his own church becuase he could not get an annulment? Why else did he do it? He even had St Thomas Moore killed because he would not bless him in his annulment. According to all of Christianity Jesus was born around Christmas and Died around Easter, thats why its celebrated.

And as for proof, in the bible it has already been done when Jesus resurrected. St Thomas asked for proof that he was real and actually resurrected and Jesus showed him his wounds. So something like that hypothetically happening, proof could be given by Jesus

How coincidental that Xtianity's most holiest days fall on pagan holidays that preceeded it by hundreds of years hmmmmm......

[Spare Moody]

[Jambo boy]

King Henry the 8th didnt create his own church becuase he could not get an annulment? Why else did he do it? He even had St Thomas Moore killed because he would not bless him in his annulment. According to all of Christianity Jesus was born around Christmas and Died around Easter, thats why its celebrated.

And as for proof, in the bible it has already been done when Jesus resurrected. St Thomas asked for proof that he was real and actually resurrected and Jesus showed him his wounds. So something like that hypothetically happening, proof could be given by Jesus

OK you didn't read my post properly but, don't worry.

As for Jesus, sorry where is the proof that he even existed?? Oh in a 200 year old book that was written by people who claimed to have known him, and compiled by the people who killed him 300 years after he died. Oh ok you win, that's proof beyond all reasonable doubt if ever i saw it.

[K-Nan]

I don't believe in the typical idea of God, but I do feel that everything in our world is ordered together in some way. And I feel like the beauty of life cannot be solely attributed to science. I can't explain why, but I actually think it's better that way.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I might sound that way, but nothing could be further from the truth.

My point in that post wasn't to bash christianity. It was to point out that we are told to not ask questions because that equals not having faith.

And it's also foolish to discuss the literal texts of the Bible unless you know exactly what the original texts in the original language said.
Because, as you probably know, there are many mis-translations and errors in the Bible as you and me kow it.

You want to bring intellect into the discussion, but yet you say Jesus was a real figure in history. Says who?
The Bible. And The Bible only.
Whether or not he was the Son of God, it is baffling that a man that spectacular hasn't been mentioned anywhere outside The Bible.
Why would that be?

If you take away the talk about God from Jesus, he says nothing more than any other great prophet, like Buddha & Krishna.
He talks about morals and values, much like common sense.

Being ignorant means to ignore what is right there in front of you.

There is absolutely no evidence of Moses leading a whole nation from Egypt to Canaan (Israel). Not a word about the enslavement nor the release in Egypt's history. Not a single piece of artifact found on the route they travelled to support the story.
And everything got written down in Egypt.
Don't ignore that.

Maybe Jesus did exist, I won't rule that out. But what did he actually say?
Could he have been repeating the teachings of Buddha, with his own twist?

For the bolded parts. How many mis-translations would there be, the main point of Jesus is that he taught to love and to forgive one another so that we can all live in a better world. He did teach that he was the Son of God and that he would come again on this earth but his main focus was on loving one another and to forgive your neighbour

(2nd bolded statement)-
Christianity as you know it did not expand and become more iminent until many years after as a result of the persecution of many followers of Jesus. Many followers of Jesus were killed as martyrs and the roman empire wanted to put an end to his followers and his teachings. If there were any other books about Jesus, they would have to be from the area of which Jesus lived or else how would one describe Jesus from somewhere like South America or anywhere else for example where he had not been seen or spoken about at the time. Also what you don't understand is that the other books and gospels about Jesus were only reduced to 4, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were all books that were written about Jesus in his time and added to make a complete book called the Bible. There were many other books and gospels about Jesus but they didn't get added but some are still viewable today. You have to understand that the Bible wasn't a book that was written by one person alone or many people writing together to form a book . It was seperate and the books from many different followers and known friends of Jesus were added to complete it. The Bible is and must be taken as the validity of Jesus Christ especially the Old Testament in which there are more then 300 known prohecies that Christians believe and in which it is aparent, that it relates to Jesus.

(3rd bolded statement)-
Buddha was not a prophet at all. He did not follow any concept relating to a Supreme Being and also Krishna is not considered a prophet. If you don't understand the term prophet, then you should look it up because it is apparent that you don't

(4th bolded statement)-
If you understand what Buddha says, then you would understand that he has a phrase which many Christians have related to Jesus in which he foretells the comming of a King and that he should be looked upon as a great messenger

[Sin City]

to the person who said something about Jesus' birth..

That's actually all astrological, they are stories told with the constelations.. in fact, most religions come from the sun and the stars.

don't believe me? the three stars on Orion's belt (the three kings) point to where the sun will be born on December the 25th.. all you need is a telescope or a constellation program to see these stories play out in the constellations.. the ressurection (where the sun dies on the southern crux and ressurects in three days) all astrological..

In fact, this is the reason why most religions have this death and rebirth story.. Dionisis, Mythras, Osiris, etc.

The 12 diciples represent the 12 constillations that follow the sun.

Virgo is the ****** Mary.. the symbol for Virgo is the letter M, this is why most of the mothers of the sun god are Myra, Mary, and so on and so forth.

If you studied the evolution of religions and the origins you would find lot's of these stories and see that they are not original to the bible and have been used hundreds of years before the bible was even thought of or wrote.

[tyson]

Originally Posted by tyson
Well, I might sound that way, but nothing could be further from the truth.

My point in that post wasn't to bash Christianity. It was to point out that we are told to not ask questions because that equals not having faith.
See, this is what I mean. No where in the Bible does it say not to question things and no preacher, priest, or any other leader of a church should or would persuade you to follow blindly without asking questions.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to what we are told. Basically, we're being spoonfed mis-information.

And it's also foolish to discuss the literal texts of the Bible unless you know exactly what the original texts in the original language said.
Because, as you probably know, there are many mis-translations and errors in the Bible as you and me kow it.
Another falsehood. The Bible has never ever been changed nor does it contradict it'self. Yes the Bible has been translated many times and YES the Bible has changed in the sense that one language cannot perfectly translate to another BUT...the original texts from which the Bible was written are still in existence, so any change would not only be unacceptable but would incur wrath of Christian and ***ish scholars both.

How many can read the language of those original texts? Take the word "Nephilim" for an example. It is translated as "fallen" or described in the sentence "those who came down".
It actually means "those who were cast down". Two different meanings right there. And yet, you assume that there are no mistakes, no mis-translations at all, even if the way we talk and speak have changed a thousand times since the texts were first translated.

I walked the dog with my hand in my ass. Mis-translated it could say "I walked the dog's hand in my ass".
Even the slightest error can make a huge difference. You assume there has been none.

You want to bring intellect into the discussion, but yet you say Jesus was a real figure in history. Says who?
The Bible. And The Bible only.
Whether or not he was the Son of God, it is baffling that a man that spectacular hasn't been mentioned anywhere outside The Bible.
Why would that be? This is why I say you sound ignorant, Jesus was a real figure NOT ONLY IN THE BIBLE. I can give you many, many references where Jesus is mentioned outside the Bible from him being a leader among the ***s to his crucifixion Heres a web site that lists his mentioning outside the Bible for proof.

That link provided nothing but a good laugh.
The only three historians living around the vicinity who wrote about Jesus at that time, wrote two-three lines, and never used the name Jesus.
They referred to a "Christa" or "Christus" or "Christ" which is not a name, but a title. Means "The Annointed one".

If you take away the talk about God from Jesus, he says nothing more than any other great prophet, like Buddha & Krishna.
He talks about morals and values, much like common sense.
Again I can see you never read the Bible or the words of Jesus. His message is much different and not at all vague or generalized as you put it. Like I said agree or disagree but the facts are you should READ the texts first and undertsand the teachings

I never said they were vague or generalized. I said he said nothing more than any other GREAT prophet. That is not condescending by any means.
And not only did we have to read the Bible in school, we had to pray every day, thank God for the food, read Bible stories out loud etc.
I was a christian up until two years ago. Then I started to do some research.

Again, JEsus message was very unique to the ***ish people. Trying to corralate the two is a stretch to say the least. Yes they both talked about morals but their messages were unique to their people.

So, is the word of Jesus only relevant to the ***ish people?
The rest of the world were just there, with no significance to God?

Makes as much sense as God claiming to be all-loving and all-caring before he wipes out the entire earth.

[tyson]

[landmine950]

Dude!

Talk to the lord about it..

Professing themslves to be wise...they became fools

The fool has said in his heart......there is no god.