Fanny Cradock Registered User
#31

rockbeer said:
Yes and no. He had a foundation to build on - the established faith that still provides your old testament - so he didn't do it single handedly nor from scratch. On top of that, most of the credit must go to those who survived him (if you can survive someone who didn't really die, that is).


You understand that don't particularly want to spend time arguing charges that I believe are fictitious.

However, it was Jesus bucking this established tradition or the foundation that began it all. But seems as you either don't believe that there was a Jesus or that he only faked his death (I can't quite tell), then it's all rather pointless in you or me apportioning blame.

rockbeer said:
Sure, but not deliberately. If he were a regular guy then he didn't know how things would turn out - he didn't knowingly send them off to their deaths. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing happened, nor the last.


OK, if he was a regular guy then he wasn't mad. However, he did one heck of a job convincing people that he wasn't so regular after all.

You state that he couldn't have known the fate of those closest to him. Well, given the Jewish culture at that time was devoutly and fiercely religious, I would think that there were few crimes that could be considered worse than calming you were The Messiah, you had the the power to forgive, began faluting the holy law and starting scenes at temples. One would imagine that Jesus (or any of his rabble raisers) would have been aware of the potential consequences if it all came tumbling down. If it was all a lie then his deception killed those who believed him as surely as the sword thrust into their side or the whip across their skin.

Fanny Cradock Registered User
#32

Gambler said:
and

To me those two combine to make a strong argument for how Jesus managed to succeed to build a following in the first place

I mean no disrespect by saying that but while a lot of Jewish people didn't believe he was the Messiah enough did to start what might today be called a and 100\200 years later be called a religion.

Look at recent history, my background was that I was raised as a Bahá'í (Click here for more on them) which is a religion that has been around since about 1850 or so. My parents are both as Irish as it gets and there are hundreds of Bahá'í's throughout the country and thousands throughout the world.

When the Bahá'í faith first arose it was seen as a cult yet now it is seen as a religion most of the world over and I wouldn't be surprised if in 500 - 1000 years it has the same kind of recognition as Islam has today.

Does that mean that Bahá'u'lláh was actually sent by God? Or is it possible that someone inspired the right people at the right time and a religion was born?


Yeah, I thought that you would make that connection. If you want to believe that it's all a load of rot then ihat's your choice. There is probably little I can do to convince you otherwise.

Do you still practice?

Gambler Registered User
#33

Fanny Cradock said:
Yeah, I thought that you would make that connection. If you want to believe that it's all a load of rot then ihat's your choice. There is probably little I can do to convince you otherwise.

To be honest I was never looking to be convinced, I am more interested in the thought process involved for religious people. It's not my attempt to convince anyone they are right\wrong, I am just curious and want to understand it a bit better.
Do you still practice?

I'm an Atheist but going to PM you about this or else this thread could go wayyy of topic again

jimbling Registered User
#34

apologies for been a bit off topic, but the whole thread seems to be now anyway.

Gareth37 said:
The power of the Holy Spirit and God is unmistakable. Its not about believing deeply, its about feeling the Holy Spirit and having that guidance than is more powerful that anything worldly.


I always have huge trouble with statements like this.
Okay, obviously you had some amazing experience... you felt the "Holy Spirit and God" in you.
But how can it be unmistakable?
How did you know it was the holy spirit and god above all else????
Surely this connection you made between this feeling and God is purely due to the culture and environment that surrounds you??
Isn't it just as possible that the feeling you had was an interaction with some other god? Or none, just your own mind?


Do you honestly believe that if you were born in India and were a faithful Hindu, who has never entertained the idea of Christianity, you could wake up one morning and say...wow... I just had the most amazing experience. I could feel the "Holy Spirit and God". I am now a Christian as this was unmistakably the Christian god and not Vishnu??

Or, do you admit, that you would have attributed this exact feeling to the god your culture and environment would naturally attribute it too???

BrokenArrows Registered User
#35

Does evidence of the existance of Jesus = evidence of the existance of God?


No!

The evidence that jesus existed just proves that a guy existed back 2000 years ago that thought he was the son of god.

Even if we had 100% proof that jesus did exist you still have to take a leap of faith that he was the son of god and not just some raving mad man.

Gareth37 Registered User
#36

jimbling said:
apologies for been a bit off topic, but the whole thread seems to be now anyway.


I always have huge trouble with statements like this.
Okay, obviously you had some amazing experience... you felt the "Holy Spirit and God" in you.
But how can it be unmistakable?
How did you know it was the holy spirit and god above all else????
Surely this connection you made between this feeling and God is purely due to the culture and environment that surrounds you??
Isn't it just as possible that the feeling you had was an interaction with some other god? Or none, just your own mind?


Do you honestly believe that if you were born in India and were a faithful Hindu, who has never entertained the idea of Christianity, you could wake up one morning and say...wow... I just had the most amazing experience. I could feel the "Holy Spirit and God". I am now a Christian as this was unmistakably the Christian god and not Vishnu??

Or, do you admit, that you would have attributed this exact feeling to the god your culture and environment would naturally attribute it too???


The Bible mentions the 7 main churches that exist for the 2nd coming. Some of their beliefs and practices may vary but Im sure their ethics are the same. I do not know their scripture so its impossible for any Christian to comment on whether or not their beliefs are in line or opposing to our Christian beliefs.

jimbling Registered User
#37

Gareth37 said:
The Bible mentions the 7 main churches that exist for the 2nd coming. Some of their beliefs and practices may vary but Im sure their ethics are the same. I do not know their scripture so its impossible for any Christian to comment on whether or not their beliefs are in line or opposing to our Christian beliefs.


eh.... wtf??? Was this supposed to be your answer to me?

All I'm getting from that is that I was correct. You took an experience. You reckoned it felt like an amazing outside force. You attached that to the only paranormal activity you knew that is accepted in society. Now you believe you have been touched by God.


Oh, and just to be a bit on topic.
Evidence of jesus = guy who started a cult and was dead many a year when they started writing about him and his teachings.
Isn't there a very acceptable argument that Jesus never claimed to be divine, and that the story was embellished later to add weight to its significance?

joenailface Banned
#38

Let's say jesus did exist, now let's say he was exactly as portrayed in the bible, if jesus preached the message it's claimed he did, acceptance and love, then he was a great man, regardless of whether he was the messiah or just a crackpot if he preached that message and actually started christianity...his message has been horribly misinterpreted and used for the personal agenda of lesser men in order to make money and have power and to give their life meaning when there clearly is no meaning to life. If hell exists no one is going there for not going to mass or not confessing your sins or believing in dinosaurs. There are only two things im sure of, i was born and i will die and until i do im going to try be as happy as possible instead of fearing eternal damnation, we'll all find out what happens in the end, so be paitent and dont make any assumptions

#39

Fanny Cradock said:

OK, if he was a regular guy then he wasn't mad. However, he did one heck of a job convincing people that he wasn't so regular after all. .


It should be pointed out that the growth of the church was really after his life (be it historical or otherwise).

Fanny Cradock said:

Well, given the Jewish culture at that time was devoutly and fiercely religious, I would think that there were few crimes that could be considered worse than calming you were The Messiah, you had the the power to forgive, began faluting the holy law and starting scenes at temples. One would imagine that Jesus (or any of his rabble raisers) would have been aware of the potential consequences if it all came tumbling down. If it was all a lie then his deception killed those who believed him as surely as the sword thrust into their side or the whip across their skin.



....which rests upon the presumption that things happened almost exactly as portrayed in the Gospels. What if, for instance, the actual Jesus was a far more fiery character - almost a zealot, and stormed into the temple with a militant band of like minded, anti-roman, anti-establishment followers and what we have today is merely the Greco-Romano redacted elements, made digestible for the Roman world?

Fanny Cradock Registered User
#40

Nodin said:
It should be pointed out that the growth of the church was really after his life (be it historical or otherwise).


That doesn't have much of a bearing on what he did for us. I would contend that it wasn't until after his death and subsequent resurrection that his purpose was complete.


Nodin said:
....which rests upon the presumption that things happened almost exactly as portrayed in the Gospels. What if, for instance, the actual Jesus was a far more fiery character - almost a zealot, and stormed into the temple with a militant band of like minded, anti-roman, anti-establishment followers and what we have today is merely the Greco-Romano redacted elements, made digestible for the Roman world?


If you want to believe that, go ahead.

#41

Fanny Cradock said:
That doesn't have much of a bearing on what he did for us. I would contend that it wasn't until after his death and subsequent resurrection that his purpose was complete..


...which again rests on presumptions, those being that he did actually arise, and that he did actually do something "for us" that can be objectively observed and measured.

Fanny Cradock said:

If you want to believe that, go ahead.


Its merely one of many hypotheses thats out there. The fact is that independent evidence simultaneous with the supposed life time of Jesus is non-existent. Therefore taking anything as "gospel" must be done on faith, rather than taken as fact.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!