Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Did Jesus Christ really exist?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Did Jesus Christ really exist?
    Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 12:37
None taken. I think that is a fair analysis of the history of Christianity. Thank you for clarifying, or rather expanding upon, your statement.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
  Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 12:31
I was just thinking about religious conflict in the world...ie the crusades etc. I also think other religions have been lost through the dominance of th early church and this to me is a loss of a way of life. It was just a remark pointing towards the fact the Christain church has many terrible deeds to its name as well as many good deeds. I in no way meant to offend.
Back to Top
Lord Ranulf View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote Lord Ranulf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:53
As for your opening statement, I believe you need to clarify it; otherwise it is completely extraneous.
 
I would agree as it's intent of expression and or attempt at communication is vague and slightly offensive by it's lack of definite supposition.Wink


Edited by Lord Ranulf - 09-Apr-2007 at 11:55
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:21
Originally posted by New User

In some ways it might have been better if he never did exist.
 
Can anyone list the actual primary sources for his existence cos that would be a good starting point to find out if he was a historical person.
 
Well, we have the Gospels, the Epistles, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers for starters. Their temporal proximity to the events they chronicle/proclaim, coupled with their obvious depth of devotion make them difficult to write off entirely, as we are often want to do. Still, they are not strictly historical sources, with the possible exception of portions of the writings of Luke. I believe there are also some references to His followers in secular sources, which most scholars would not view as definitive of His existence.
 
As for your opening statement, I believe you need to clarify it; otherwise it is completely extraneous.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Apr-2007 at 11:55
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
  Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 10:54
In some ways it might have been better if he never did exist.
 
Can anyone list the actual primary sources for his existence cos that would be a good starting point to find out if he was a historical person.
 
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 09:53
Originally posted by gcle2003

Big%20smile
 
Actually Buddhism presents a bigger problem here than either Christianity or Islam or Judaism.
 
I always refer to Gautama, not 'the Buddha' or, even worse, 'Buddha', but I'm not sure that a purist might not say Siddhartha, and Siddartha Gautama is too much to type. There were of course lots of Gautamas at the time, and only one Siddartha that I know of, but I'm old-fashioned enough to use the family name (when there is one) unless I've been accepted on familiar terms.
 
You have just given me an itch to re-read that Hesse novel, whichy I can't seem to find at this moment. Have you any idea how much precious time you have cost me? Smile
 
Sensible. Incidentally I like to call followers of Jesus's teaching who do not accept his divinity as 'Nazarenes', since I can't think of an natural-sounding adjective from Jesus.
 
You might also try "Galileans." Julian the Apostate referred to us as such out of a fear owing to his neo-Platonic belief in the power of names. I definitely think you are right to make the distinction; we would do well to distinguish between Christians and those who think Christ was a teacher to be admired and followed but refuse to accept Christian Christological definitions.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Apr-2007 at 09:54
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 09:35
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

 
But gcle2003, isn't Christ just Jesus' last name? Wink
 
Big%20smile
 
Actually Buddhism presents a bigger problem here than either Christianity or Islam or Judaism.
 
I always refer to Gautama, not 'the Buddha' or, even worse, 'Buddha', but I'm not sure that a purist might not say Siddhartha, and Siddartha Gautama is too much to type. There were of course lots of Gautamas at the time, and only one Siddartha that I know of, but I'm old-fashioned enough to use the family name (when there is one) unless I've been accepted on familiar terms.
 
 
I take your point, and think that it serves to further clarify the discussion. It is always important to designate exactly what/What (or who/Who) we are attempting to speak about.
 
When we explore His existence from a purely historical perspectived, we must investigate Jesus of Nazareth; when the faithful explore it prayerfully and experientially, we immerse ourselves in Jesus the Christ. My motivation for concluding my last post with the question "Christ?" without also citing the equally pertinent question "Jesus?" was twofold. First, I believe that the designation "Christ" covers both the historical and transcendant aspects of Jesus' being, and second, I just thought it sounded so much better. LOL
 
-Akolouthos
 
Sensible. Incidentally I like to call followers of Jesus's teaching who do not accept his divinity as 'Nazarenes', since I can't think of an natural-sounding adjective from Jesus.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 08:21
Originally posted by gcle2003

Akolouthos, I have no quarrel with most of that, except that as a matter of principle I would refer to Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ, since I don't accept the religious beliefs inherent in using the designation 'Christ'. 
 
But gcle2003, isn't Christ just Jesus' last name? Wink
 
I take your point, and think that it serves to further clarify the discussion. It is always important to designate exactly what/What (or who/Who) we are attempting to speak about.
 
When we explore His existence from a purely historical perspectived, we must investigate Jesus of Nazareth; when the faithful explore it prayerfully and experientially, we immerse ourselves in Jesus the Christ. My motivation for concluding my last post with the question "Christ?" without also citing the equally pertinent question "Jesus?" was twofold. First, I believe that the designation "Christ" covers both the historical and transcendant aspects of Jesus' being, and second, I just thought it sounded so much better. LOL
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Apr-2007 at 08:31
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 04:38
Akolouthos, I have no quarrel with most of that, except that as a matter of principle I would refer to Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ, since I don't accept the religious beliefs inherent in using the designation 'Christ'. 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 17:46

Jesus Christ exists.

The question, especially in light of the commemoration of His glorious
Resurrection, is not so much did He exist, but rather does He exist, and the answer is resoundingly, and demonstrably "Yes!"
 
The historical question here does not interest me as much as it might have years ago; the way I see it, there is a bit of circumstantial evidence for the historical Christ. While there is more evidence for his existence than might be expected for that of a man who was, in the eyes of the Romans a no-account Jew (indeed the Christian Church today is a part of that evidence which may be traced back to Apostolic times), and while this evidence is more than enough (and perhaps even entirely superfluous) for those who believe, it will never be enough for those who do not believe to definitively say that there was, in fact, a historical Jesus. Indeed, these individuals are often justified in their skepticism from a historiographical perspective; there are problems with clearly defining Christ as a historical person, using traditional methods. This difficulty presents no obstacle to the faith. It deals with the historical analysis of One who we Christians know exists. What is problematic, however, is that some would try to infer impious things from the fact that there is limited evidence for a historical Jesus. Some would infer that because defining Him historically is difficult, He may never have existed historically, and thus, does not exist.
 
For those who follow Him, however, Jesus Christ is more than a historical person. He is present all around us, abides in us, and if we let Him, works through us. Thus, the knowledge of Christ, for the Christian, is experiential; we know Him through our connection in private prayer and in public worship, in times of joy and times of hardship, in our filial adoration of Him and in our fraternal connection to each other. For the Christian, He simply IS.
 
Indeed it is laughable that we now question the existence of the self-existent One, who is Existence itself, attempting to use our trite systems of historical analysis to reach beyond history--indeed beyond temporal definition itself--and into He who is incomprehensible and eternal.
 
I think, in this discussion, that we need to be ever conscious of the different epistemological approaches to the ontological question: "Christ?"
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 08-Apr-2007 at 17:52
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 14:45
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Timotheus

It is amazing that people still question the historical figure of Jesus. One might as well question the historical figure of Julius Caesar because there are in fact more source texts from the general era that refer to Jesus than to Caesar.
Tosh. We've been here before, only then it was Tiberius.
 
There are far, far, far more textual and other references to Julius Caesar during his lifetime that there are to Jesus. In fact there are more to any Caesar you care to pick.
 
What is really amazing is that anyone still thinks he can get away with this sort of wildly inaccurate statement.
 
I believe Jesus was a historical figure on the balance of all the evidence, but it is certainly not 'thoroughly ridiculous' to question his historicity: certainly not as totally ridiculous as it is to assert that there are more contemporary references to him than to Julius Caesar.
 
There are I suspect more textual references to Caesar in De Bello Gallico  alone than there are to Jesus in the Gospels. And De Bello Gallico was certainly written in his lifetime, just like all the other 'de bello's - Civili, Hispaniensis, Africo, Alexandrino.
 
And don't forget the coins - every coin minted for Julius Caesar is a contenporary textual reference to his existence: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/imp/julius_caesar/i.html
 
And the inscriptions ... and the statuary ... and the consular rolls....
 
 
 
Now, of course, Caesar never claimed to be God (or if he did, nobody takes him seriously anymore). And it ultimately cannot be absolutely proven by human logic that He was God. That is something that must be either believed to be true or believed to be not true. However, it is thoroughly ridiculous to question the historicity of Jesus Christ.


Straw Man.
Why don't you stop demonstrating you have no idea what that means?
 
 
You've mentioned number of references within texts, when what was being said was number of texts.
So define for me what you mean by a text. I hear people say during church services that they are reading 'a text from the Gospels'. Since they do that pretty well every week, I naturally assume you can have more than one 'text' in a book.
 
Anyway, if you just take the various 'de bello' books there are at least five written in Julius Caesar's lifetime, even if he didn't write three of them. Where are the ones written in Jesus's lifetime?
 
Also you totally ignore the point that each coin bearing the name is an individual textual reference. 'Texts' aren't just books.
 
You have also failed to produce any evidence regarding number of texts,
!
I specifically named five. You want me to provide evidence that Caesar wrote De Bello Gallico and De Bello Civili? What more do you want - evidence that the sun rose today?
 
whereas evidence has been produced for the other side regarding the Tiberius argument.
Ignoring the fact that here we were discussing Julius not Tiberius, where was that done? Where are the contemporary texts referring to Jesus (except for Josephus, which I grant)?
 
The first thing you are going to go for is coins, however, we are addressing strictly textual references so I'll head that off.
No we're not. You don't get to define what we were discussing. Or what is evidence. The writing on a coin is just as much a text as the writing in a book. In fact, if anything it is better evidence. People don't put the names of contemporary emperors and kings and others on coins unless they exist.
 
An English penny from 1886 is very strong evidence that there was a Queen Victoria at the time (and that she at least claimed to be Empress of India). However, the reference to Pippin IV as King of France in Steinbeck's book definitely does not prove there was a King Pippin in France in the 1950s.
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 09:45
Yes.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 08:33
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Timotheus

It is amazing that people still question the historical figure of Jesus. One might as well question the historical figure of Julius Caesar because there are in fact more source texts from the general era that refer to Jesus than to Caesar.
Tosh. We've been here before, only then it was Tiberius.
 
There are far, far, far more textual and other references to Julius Caesar during his lifetime that there are to Jesus. In fact there are more to any Caesar you care to pick.
 
What is really amazing is that anyone still thinks he can get away with this sort of wildly inaccurate statement.
 
I believe Jesus was a historical figure on the balance of all the evidence, but it is certainly not 'thoroughly ridiculous' to question his historicity: certainly not as totally ridiculous as it is to assert that there are more contemporary references to him than to Julius Caesar.
 
There are I suspect more textual references to Caesar in De Bello Gallico  alone than there are to Jesus in the Gospels. And De Bello Gallico was certainly written in his lifetime, just like all the other 'de bello's - Civili, Hispaniensis, Africo, Alexandrino.
 
And don't forget the coins - every coin minted for Julius Caesar is a contenporary textual reference to his existence: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/imp/julius_caesar/i.html
 
And the inscriptions ... and the statuary ... and the consular rolls....
 
 
 
Now, of course, Caesar never claimed to be God (or if he did, nobody takes him seriously anymore). And it ultimately cannot be absolutely proven by human logic that He was God. That is something that must be either believed to be true or believed to be not true. However, it is thoroughly ridiculous to question the historicity of Jesus Christ.


Straw Man. You've mentioned number of references within texts, when what was being said was number of texts. You have also failed to produce any evidence regarding number of texts, whereas evidence has been produced for the other side regarding the Tiberius argument. The first thing you are going to go for is coins, however, we are addressing strictly textual references so I'll head that off.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 07:50
 
Originally posted by Timotheus

It is amazing that people still question the historical figure of Jesus. One might as well question the historical figure of Julius Caesar because there are in fact more source texts from the general era that refer to Jesus than to Caesar.
Tosh. We've been here before, only then it was Tiberius.
 
There are far, far, far more textual and other references to Julius Caesar during his lifetime that there are to Jesus. In fact there are more to any Caesar you care to pick.
 
What is really amazing is that anyone still thinks he can get away with this sort of wildly inaccurate statement.
 
I believe Jesus was a historical figure on the balance of all the evidence, but it is certainly not 'thoroughly ridiculous' to question his historicity: certainly not as totally ridiculous as it is to assert that there are more contemporary references to him than to Julius Caesar.
 
There are I suspect more textual references to Caesar in De Bello Gallico  alone than there are to Jesus in the Gospels. And De Bello Gallico was certainly written in his lifetime, just like all the other 'de bello's - Civili, Hispaniensis, Africo, Alexandrino.
 
And don't forget the coins - every coin minted for Julius Caesar is a contenporary textual reference to his existence: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/imp/julius_caesar/i.html
 
And the inscriptions ... and the statuary ... and the consular rolls....
 
 
 
Now, of course, Caesar never claimed to be God (or if he did, nobody takes him seriously anymore). And it ultimately cannot be absolutely proven by human logic that He was God. That is something that must be either believed to be true or believed to be not true. However, it is thoroughly ridiculous to question the historicity of Jesus Christ.


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Apr-2007 at 07:50
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478
  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 23:36
It is amazing that people still question the historical figure of Jesus. One might as well question the historical figure of Julius Caesar because there are in fact more source texts from the general era that refer to Jesus than to Caesar.

Now, of course, Caesar never claimed to be God (or if he did, nobody takes him seriously anymore). And it ultimately cannot be absolutely proven by human logic that He was God. That is something that must be either believed to be true or believed to be not true. However, it is thoroughly ridiculous to question the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Opium is the religion of the masses.

From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.
Back to Top
trouper View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote trouper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 15:00
Originally posted by red clay


Keith wrote


      He did, and does,exist, and there is a God who created use and the universe and everything.


       Question, If a Creator-God made this universe, then where was he before that? Did he make our universe because he had to leave his old one? Lost his lease or something? And who created God, anyhoo?


        Just wondering.     



Given that God created everything, who created God?

Prophet Muhammad predicted that this question would one day be raised as he correctly predicted a great many future events of importance. On one occasion he said:

A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: ‘Given that God created everything, who created God?’ (Bukhari, ‘I‘tisam,’ 3).

Those who put such questions are generally atheists or inclined to atheism and seek to lead others astray also. The purpose of their question is possibly to avoid the responsibilities owed by us to the Creator; belief and worship. At best, the question is derived from the observation of (what are taken to be) ‘cause and effect’ relationships. Every circumstance can be thought of as an ‘effect’ and attributed to an antecedent circumstance or ‘cause’ which, in turn, is attributed to some circumstance antecedent to it, and so on. In the first place, it is obvious to anyone who reasons objectively that the notion of ‘cause’ is only an hypothesis, it has no objective existence: all that objectively exists is a particular, often (but not always) repeated sequence of circumstances. Secondly, if this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. (In fact, the futile notion of a never-ending chain of creators was one of the arguments used by Muslim theologians to explain the necessity of believing in God.)

The Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal.

It is self-evident that the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being can be said to ‘cause’ anything, that capacity to ‘cause’ was itself created within that being. Thus, no being in the universe can be said to be self-existent; rather, it owes its existence to the Creator who alone is Self-Existent as well as Self-Subsistent. It follows from the fact that the Creator alone truly creates that for each and every being He has determined all possible ‘causes’ and ‘effects’, all things whatever that come before or after it. Therefore, we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to His Creation from first to last. All ‘causes’ have their beginning in Him, and all ‘effects’ find their ending in Him. In truth, created things are no more than so many ciphers or zeros which, no matter how many we put in a series, add up to nothing, unless a positive ‘one’ is placed before the series to give it value. In just this way, the creation could have no real existence, nor any value, except by God.

What we call ‘causes’ have no direct or independent influence in existence, no direct or independent ‘effects’. It may be that we need to speak of ‘causes and effects’ in order to understand how, in a short space and over a little period of time, some part of the Creation is made (by the Mercy of God) intelligible to us and available to us for our use. But even this but confirms our dependence upon God and our answerability before Him. It is not God who needs ‘causes and effects’ to create; rather it is we who need ‘causes and effects’ to understand what He has created. He alone is the First and the Last, the Eternal, the Initiator and the Determiner—and all our busy little efforts after cause and effect are but veils between ourselves and His Majesty.

Let us then affirm once more: He, God, is One; God, the Self-Subsistent, Eternally-Besought-of-All; He neither begets nor was begotten; and nothing whatever is like unto Him.
Back to Top
trouper View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote trouper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 14:39
Originally posted by Jagiello

The message of the christendom was murdering, killing, torturing, burning, cozenage and some other smooth things for centuries. LOL


Even a muslim wouldn't say that.How exactly did you figure that out??Give me ONE proof that Jesus proclamed murdering,torturing....I've read and heard many things agains Chrisindom but NEVER that Jesus spread ideas of murdering and torturing.In a world of murdering and torturing he spread the ideas of right the oposite.Have you read the bible.I doubt it because inthe whole New Testament is writen that "we shouldn't do to our comrade what we don't want he to do to us".Peace and Love-this is the message of Chrisindom,nomather how some people,in medieval especialy,interpretated it.You're statement that Jesus proclamed murdering and torturing is simply rediculous!!

Just as a book cannot be thought without its writer,and a small town without its governor,the universe is a big book of creation.It does have a Creator, the Owner. Can you claim that you own your body? We cannot even control every part of our body. Can you handle your heart? Or can you stop growing?
So one must believe that the Owner of this big palace (city, country ,,,whatever you may call it)surely lets us know about Himself and lets us know about why we are here.
Surely, the messengers were sent to us from among us.The being who should teach us should have known our weaknesses, feelings etc.
That's why I believe no Godly religion preaches murdering , killing or violating the rights of innocent people. ( no Godly religions)
Back to Top
trouper View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote trouper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 14:26
Originally posted by Jagiello

The message of the christendom was murdering, killing, torturing, burning, cozenage and some other smooth things for centuries. LOL


Even a muslim wouldn't say that.How exactly did you figure that out??Give me ONE proof that Jesus proclamed murdering,torturing....I've read and heard many things agains Chrisindom but NEVER that Jesus spread ideas of murdering and torturing.In a world of murdering and torturing he spread the ideas of right the oposite.Have you read the bible.I doubt it because inthe whole New Testament is writen that "we shouldn't do to our comrade what we don't want he to do to us".Peace and Love-this is the message of Chrisindom,nomather how some people,in medieval especialy,interpretated it.You're statement that Jesus proclamed murdering and torturing is simply rediculous!!

Evidences???
To prove the existence of a Creator we do not need to look for evidence our existence is a proof.The prefect system, the delicate balance in the universe,the design of our bodies etc. all and each bear witness to the existence of an ALL-KNOWING, COMPASSIONATE,... Creator.
* The distance between the earth and the Sun is miraculous. If it were a bit further, there would be ice age forever. If it were a bit closer, we would all turn to ash.No type of life would exist here.
* The human eye is a miracle itself.
* Just as a great work of art, say a painting, shows (is a witness) us the artist. This magnificent order shows its ARTIST.Nature is a work of art.It cannot be the Artist.
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 09:47
The message of the christendom was murdering, killing, torturing, burning, cozenage and some other smooth things for centuries.    LOL
 
Even a muslim wouldn't say that.How exactly did you figure that out??Give me ONE proof that Jesus proclamed murdering,torturing....I've read and heard many things agains Chrisindom but NEVER that Jesus spread ideas of murdering and torturing.In a world of murdering and torturing he spread the ideas of right the oposite.Have you read the bible.I doubt it because in the whole New Testament is writen that "we shouldn't do to our comrade what we don't want he to do to us".Peace and Love-this is the message of Chrisindom,nomather how some people,in medieval especialy,interpretated it.You're statement that Jesus proclamed murdering and torturing is simply rediculous!!
Back to Top
ulrich von hutten View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Court Jester

Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
  Quote ulrich von hutten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 02:27
Originally posted by Jagiello

I think you didn't understand what i mean.I am a christianLOL.But i hear people saying there is nothing good in being christian and that it is even stupid.I don't think it really metters weather Jesus Christ existed or not-it is the message of chrisindom that matters.The message of love and not hate,of peace and not war and if an atheist really tries to think about it he would come to the same conclusion.The problem of course is that it is harder to think than NOT to thinkLOL , like with everythink else.
 
If your suvey is, that atheists don't think, than i must say your remarks attest , that obviously the reverse is true.
 
But, my friend, i don't think, most of the atheists were born as such, but became after a long process of thinking, balance all reasons and finaly proof many arguments.
 
The message of the christendom was murdering, killing, torturing, burning, cozenage and some other smooth things for centuries.
 
If some doesn't belive, i could be a proof of intensive thinking.
If someone doesn't think, he/she might be an atheist or a jew, a muslim or a christ, but first of all, he/she is a cretin.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.102 seconds.