Did Jesus say he was God???

[Sees]

What paganism was forced by armies?

You must not have understood it.

I can think of no other faith that was not initially spread by force that grew as fast, especially when being persecuted by the most powerful empire in history.

Constantine is not even part of Christianity's initial explosion. My statement meant I can think of no other faith that spread only by it's merits that increased so fast in the face of such opposition. For example Islam languished in it first non retaliatory years while being under far milder opposition. Only when Muhammad was given bands of soldiers to use to raid caravans and kill the opposition did it start to really grow. You can dismiss it if you want but again it is another factor that is consistent with the bibles merits as truth.

Of course Christianity spread faster when not being hunted by the largest empire on earth but it grew significantly long before that. In ways I can think of no parallel to. Islam grew on blood and loot, Hinduism grew almost unopposed, paganism was forced on others by armies, and even Judaism took hold by conquest to some extent.

 

[1robin]

What paganism was forced by armies?

Roman. Rome would if people cooperated let them retain their own faith. If not they would eradicate it by force and only tolerate some form of paganism. The pagans fought a war against the Christians in Rome to end it. The pagans in Arabia fought Muhammad tooth and nail trying to retain their faiths dominance. That is just a few to start with.

Your avatar sure appears to be equipped to enforce something at least.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, he picked the one most likely to further his political ambitions.

Come on ambiguous dude. He initially selected the faith personally on a battle field as he saw a sign. He at that time was one of maybe a few hundred Christian in the entire empire. In what way I picking a faith hated by 99% of your empire advantageous unless true. He went on to win even though severely outnumbered after the visions said he would but even then he did not clash with the 99% that were not Christians, all he did was make it legal to practice. Later on the pagans decided that would not do and tried to wipe them out.. Again outnumbered the Christians prevailed. Then the ideas not the power of the faith began to convince huge numbers because it was no longer under threat of death, and swept the empire like a tidal wave, eventually simply displacing paganisms lack of merit without significant violence.

 

[Sees]

Roman. Rome would if people cooperated let them retain their own faith. If not they would eradicate it by force and only tolerate some form of paganism. The pagans fought a war against the Christians in Rome to end it. The pagans in Arabia fought Muhammad tooth and nail trying to retain their faiths dominance. That is just a few to start with.

Your avatar sure appears to be equipped to enforce something at least.

Enforce freedom

I guess it all depends on viewpoint...primarily Church and Islamic historical views here and elsewhere get the benefit of the doubt.

There is a reason Rome and pagan Roman rulers were tolerant and respectful to Jews but not Christians. Similar to why the rulers of pagan Mecca were tolerant to Jews, Christians, etc. but not Muhammad's proposals and agenda.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Come on ambiguous dude. He initially selected the faith personally on a battle field as he saw a sign.

Hey, if that's what you want to believe, I guess you should believe it. Me, I've studied human nature and history all my life, and I've learned two things which are relevant here:

1) Rulers are cynical. Especially successful ones. They use whatever works.

2) Rulers love to make up fairy tales about how uncynical they are. "Oh, I saw a sign, in a cloud!"

But believe what you want. Whatever makes you feel right.

He went on to win even though severely outnumbered after the visions said he would...

Sure. I'm sure it all happened just as he claimed it happened.

...all he did was make it legal to practice. Later on the pagans decided that would not do and tried to wipe them out.. Again outnumbered the Christians prevailed. Then the ideas not the power of the faith began to convince huge numbers because it was no longer under threat of death, and swept the empire like a tidal wave, eventually simply displacing paganisms lack of merit without significant violence.

Yikes. If you don't mind, I think I'll see historical truth wisely, thoughtfully, rationally... rather than accepting the one-sided myths of Christian fundamentalism.

Nothing personal.

 

[1robin]

Enforce freedom

How did you get this from what I said. Rome would annihilate any other faith if they were politically troublesome and only leave paganism as an option until only worshiping Caesar as God was introduced. How is that a defense of freedom.

I guess it all depends on viewpoint...primarily Church and Islamic historical views here and elsewhere get the benefit of the doubt.

Church views get exactly the opposite of the benefit from any doubt.

There is a reason Rome and pagan Roman rulers were tolerant and respectful to Jews but not Christians. Similar to why the rulers of pagan Mecca were tolerant to Jews, Christians, etc. but not Muhammad's proposals and agenda.

First Rome and Judaism had a long and bloody war and in fact the Jews inflicted the greatest uprising Rome ever suffered. They did particularly like the Christians for several reasons. They blamed Christians for maintaining faith in God above Caesar. BTW that also applied to the Jews. They were never respectful of the Jews and only tolerated them if they stayed strictly in line. The moment they got out of line a very bloody and vengeful war ensued which intentionally destroyed Judaism's most Holy sites. In Contrast Pilate was on Christ's side and against the Jewish priests personally. Your history is way off the mark in that whole post..

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, he picked the one most likely to further his political ambitions.

i believe there is no doubt he had selfish reasons but God was very pleased to use those in order to reduce persecution of Christians in the Roman empire. However i believe it has always been the case that God is helpful when other religions are not.

 

[`mud]

Every now and again, I drop by here to say...

What???

'mud

 

[1robin]

Every now and again, I drop by here to say...

What???

'mud

Why???

 

[`mud]

.....on my part.

And I don't know why?

I wonder if He really knew.....
or even thought out loud about it....
Paul thought he knew...
Simon was just hanging around the temple..

But I still don't get the real .WHAT??

There were not any christians yet......barely

I'm goin nowhere with this...like this thread...and never will
Ask Paul.
~
'mud

 

[1robin]

.....on my part.

And I don't know why?

I wonder if He really knew.....
or even thought out loud about it....
Paul thought he knew...
Simon was just hanging around the temple..

But I still don't get the real .WHAT??

There were not any christians yet......barely

I'm goin nowhere with this...like this thread...and never will
Ask Paul.
~
'mud

Paul's word is good enough for me.

 

[`mud]

...about it.
the 13th try...
Naw...just forget about it...
Jesus rules...and is worshipped by all that matter.
~
:yes:
'mud

 

[1robin]

...about it.
the 13th try...
Naw...just forget about it...
Jesus rules...and is worshipped by all that matter.
~
:yes:
'mud

Your posts remind of Dutch Shultz's famous last words:

“Hey, Jimmie! The Chimney Sweeps. Talk to the Sword. Shut up, you got a big mouth! Please come help me up, Henny. Max come over here. French Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone.”Top 10 Famous Last Words and Quotes | Toptenz.net

 

[Muffled]

.....on my part.

And I don't know why?

I wonder if He really knew.....
or even thought out loud about it....
Paul thought he knew...
Simon was just hanging around the temple..

But I still don't get the real .WHAT??

There were not any christians yet......barely

I'm goin nowhere with this...like this thread...and never will
Ask Paul.
~
'mud

I believe this may be a case of thredus interruptus in hopes that it will die.

I believe we have come a long way and have a long way to go.

I believe it would help if you narrowed your question down to something more relevant.

I believe, If you are referring to the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh the answer is that He knew.

 

[Muffled]

Paul's word is good enough for me.

I believe Paul never said anything about this thread and I wouldn't bet on anyone knowing that they are the re-icarnated Paul so that one could ask him but he did say many things leading me to believe that his information from the Holy Spirit was that Jesus is divine.

 

[littleoldme]

Paul's word is good enough for me.

and not for me...

interesting, eh?

so now we are at an agreement of disagreement about something that is understood subjectively....funny enough the real things in life like
the laws of gravity, math and objective evidence isn't up for grabs like that...
imo, inconsistency cheapens meaning

 

[1robin]

I believe Paul never said anything about this thread and I wouldn't bet on anyone knowing that they are the re-icarnated Paul so that one could ask him but he did say many things leading me to believe that his information from the Holy Spirit was that Jesus is divine.

It has been awhile but I believe my words were a response to a verse from Paul, or a reference to him. I agree with your conclusion but do not understand your premise.

 

[1robin]

and not for me...

interesting, eh?

so now we are at an agreement of disagreement about something that is understood subjectively....funny enough the real things in life like
the laws of gravity, math and objective evidence isn't up for grabs like that...
imo, inconsistency cheapens meaning

In many cases the truth of what Paul claimed are not subjective. You must be kidding about science. I have a math degree and work in science and nothing can be more subjective. Where is the objective evidence for multiverses, dark energy, cracked eggs, or whatever todays in vogue cosmology is? Which is better a 1553 bus or H009? What exactly is gravity? Does light behave the same way on the other side of the universe? How does the information of one atom get transferred across space to create another atom? Why is there anything instead of nothing? Where did everything come from? I have had constructed 12 drop in replacement instruments for a test device associated with an AF active fighter, not one in 12 have worked correctly. Science is anything but objective or exact. We poke a few pin pricks in a canvas of blackness and think we are enlightened. Yet not one of those pin pricks can answer a single question on any standard list of top ten questions the average person holds. I do not share your optimism when the same technology used to heat a home is also used to threaten the extinction of all life as we know it, and we have the moral insanity to have almost done so twice.

Enough philosophizing. Do you have a specific point you would like to contend?

 

[metis]

There's a vast difference between hypotheses and axioms, so not all scientific concepts are equal. The scientific method is used worldwide by scientists to try and keep biases out of the research, and even if I were to screw up and accidentally include my bias in my research, many other scientists will be more than happy to jump all over my carcass.

Religion, otoh, doesn't really work on either the scientific method nor objectivity. If we cannot even provide any objectively-derived evidence for there being a "God" (or "Gods"), how could we logically take it any further? And yet so many theists will enunciate rather elaborate theologies based on what objectivity?

However, to be clear, nor is there any objectively-derived evidence that there is no "God" or "Gods", so the most objective stance is one whereas we probably should be simply saying "I don't know".

 

[1robin]

There's a vast difference between hypotheses and axioms, so not all scientific concepts are equal. The scientific method is used worldwide by scientists to try and keep biases out of the research, and even if I were to screw up and accidentally include my bias in my research, many other scientists will be more than happy to jump all over my carcass.

I have a scientific degree and work in science so I do appreciate science. I however have a far less optimistic opinion of it than many in this modern era. I see first hand the unreliability of even older 90's technologies. In fact my employment is dependent on sciences failures and business is a booming. This is a theological forum so I will only relate how science is relevant to it.

1. Reliable science is extremely consistent with the bible. In fact much of it was born as a Christian ideal. Men of faith believed that the universe created by a rational being would contain rationality and they set out to decode it from nature. That effort more than any other single motivation produced the greatest scientific breakthroughs there have ever been. The areas in which science is used to contend with the bible are almost exclusively confined to the extreme speculative arenas of science. Where there exists almost no objective facts to verify scientific sounding claims.
2. There is no conflict between reliable science and God. Some how the opposite generalized conclusion has become dominant. There exists no truth to it if scrutinized and it serves only as a distraction and false dichotomy.
3. Science in general confirms the bible. Cosmological, biological, historical, etc.... claims in the bible have increasing been proven correct using modern science. However theories like multiverses or what occurred billons of years ago are used to contend with the bible. These lack objective verification and when tomorrows forecast or the details about a battle 100 years ago are frequently completely wrong I have absolutely no use for claims about how slime crawled out of the ocean 2 billion years ago. In those areas only the broadest generalities are meaningful.

In summary I see science (reliable science) as a very useful tool for affirming the bible's claims. The only portion of science that is routinely used to contend with it requires more faith given less evidence than my beliefs require and does not deserve the credibility normally associated with the word science. It is virtually science fiction.

Religion, otoh, doesn't really work on either the scientific method nor objectivity. If we cannot even provide any objectively-derived evidence for there being a "God" (or "Gods"), how could we logically take it any further? And yet so many theists will enunciate rather elaborate theologies based on what objectivity?

There is some truth to that but much that is not quite accurate. There are many things in theology that must transcribe to objective fact or the closest we can obtain to it.

1. For example there must be ten thousand historical claims which have potential for objective confirmation of denial. Overwhelmingly they are confirmatory and many times the bibles claims prove the archeologists wrong in the end. There are entire museum full of artifacts from cultures in the bible that at one time scholars claimed never existed. The Bible is a primary tool of archeologists of all types.
2. The bible also makes many scientific claims about for example germ theory, hydrology, oceanic dynamics, cosmology, etc... These have all been confirmed by objective science. In fact a few of them inspired the initial efforts in the fields themselves.
3. The bible makes many philosophical claims. These can be compared to what secular philosophy states as axioms or principles.
4. There are many indirect indications that can be compared to objective conclusions. For example the bible indicates life can only come from life. That is exactly what science claims as well. I mean actual observed science that conforms to objective evaluations not fantasy and speculation.
5. There are many logical tests. For example the bible recorded long before any telescope was even hinted at that the stars are practically numberless. This was at a time when less that ten thousand stars were visible.

There are actually quite a bit of objectively verified claims in the bible. By necessity however he bible makes many supernatural claims and outside areas like the historical evidence or a consistent narrative these cannot be verified by natural exploration.

However, to be clear, nor is there any objectively-derived evidence that there is no "God" or "Gods", so the most objective stance is one whereas we probably should be simply saying "I don't know".

I appreciate the admission. I would sum it up like this.

1. There is no proof for God.
2. There is however a mountain of evidence for God.
3. There is no reliable science that contradicts with the Bible, reliable science is extremely consistent wit the bible.
4. There are objective tests for many of the bibles claims but not any objective tests for a great many others.