Mythical Christ

[logician]

There are logical criteria that historians apply to such references to ancient figures, that lead them to believe that they actually existed, or that they were mythical characters, or perhaps some combination of both. And the same logical criteria has been applied to Jesus as to the others. And according to such criteria, the most likely scenario would be that someone who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and probably did something to become the focus and exemplification of a new theological ideal that arose at that time. But the reality of that person soon became secondary to his being the icon of this new spiritual ideology, and so the stories about him soon began to morph into mythology to better represent these ideals to expanding numbers of people and to succeeding generations.

The only "historians" that claim Jesus existed have a big axe to grind, also, there also is no proof whatsoever that city name Nazareth ever existed. Of course, the spiritual Christ is just myth like any other religion.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

Simple Rule of thumb, really.
The Logic Used to "Disprove" The Historical Relevence In The Bible...Only Works....To Dispprove Something "In The Bible"....Its a state of mind.. You Dont want to Believe or to Look at Evidance Either Plain Evidance..Or some alitte abstract...

If you were a detective looking to Prove a story....How Would you Decide something is Plausable......

Example......

Your Witness tells you (as you Write everything down)

" Yes Officer...I Know where he was heading....Richard (my real name) Left early Yesterday Evening and told me he was heading to the mall in Connecicut...." (You ask for the name of the mall) Im not really sure...i just know its the Big one out that way..Maybe Danberry.....well anyway... He was carrying blue sun glasses with a marking "O" on it..i think it was the symbol for Oacklit Sunglass Corp.He told me after the mall he was heading for California....The Off to Florida...He then decided he was gonna skip cali. and Goto Washington to visit the Great Sites...."

You Couldnt Find Richard... You found Sunglasses with an "O" on it in the mall, You had a witness account...But you still couldnt find him.... My Qeustion is....Why did you search? There is a mall....there is a cali..and Memorials....But no real Evidance....But why would you search....Why do Detetives search..Just because i wasnt found...Doesnt mean I didnt Exist...

And what would someone 2000 years from now say when they came across your notepad...Your manuscripts...I believe they would Conclude..Your search for Richard..Fell short... But in story if they decided to Write about it... They would say " A Man named Richard Went to a mall wearing Sun Glasses with an O on it...he went to Cali...He Visited Washington...But He was to fast for the detective..." Someone Reading 2000 Years From now..Wouldnt Even Question the Notes of a Detective.....
They take it as Fact...Becuase of the Obvious Evidence....Maybe Cali and Ny were covered in Dirt and sand or water.. But scientists New they Existed at one point...and to these Scholars they take it as Fact...

Your argument is only an argument because you Refuse to believe.......
Despite Bunerous Vauge References....
Hundreds of Archiological Finds.....
(and i wouldnt dare compar some of those archeological finds even closly to Kansas Mention in Wizard of Oz)
Despite everything you Refuse to believe....


And i dotn ask you to....But if your not willing to search for the Spirutual Christ...Then dont bother Commenting on the Historical Christ...


Jesus Knew the day would come and People wouldnt Believe..so he told us this
"Blessed are those who Believe without seeing"

 

[logician]

There are logical criteria that historians apply to such references to ancient figures, that lead them to believe that they actually existed, or that they were mythical characters, or perhaps some combination of both. And the same logical criteria has been applied to Jesus as to the others. And according to such criteria, the most likely scenario would be that someone who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and probably did something to become the focus and exemplification of a new theological ideal that arose at that time. But the reality of that person soon became secondary to his being the icon of this new spiritual ideology, and so the stories about him soon began to morph into mythology to better represent these ideals to expanding numbers of people and to succeeding generations.

The only "historians" that claim Jesus existed have a big axe to grind, also, there is no proof whatsoever that a city named Nazareth ever existed, that name also coming from pre-existant mythology. Of course, the spritual Christ is myth like any other religion's god.

 

[logician]

There are logical criteria that historians apply to such references to ancient figures, that lead them to believe that they actually existed, or that they were mythical characters, or perhaps some combination of both. And the same logical criteria has been applied to Jesus as to the others. And according to such criteria, the most likely scenario would be that someone who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and probably did something to become the focus and exemplification of a new theological ideal that arose at that time. But the reality of that person soon became secondary to his being the icon of this new spiritual ideology, and so the stories about him soon began to morph into mythology to better represent these ideals to expanding numbers of people and to succeeding generations.

The only "historians" that claim Jesus existed have a big axe to grind, also, there is no proof whatsoever that a city named Nazareth ever existed, that name also coming from pre-existant mythology. Of course, the spritual Christ is myth like any other religion's god.

 

[PureX]

The only "historians" that claim Jesus existed have a big axe to grind, also, there is no proof whatsoever that a city named Nazareth ever existed, that name also coming from pre-existant mythology. Of course, the spritual Christ is myth like any other religion's god.

The interesting thing is that we can't prove Jesus didn't exist any more than we can prove that he did.

We are left with speculations, and reasoned probabilities. And bias.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only "historians" that claim Jesus existed have a big axe to grind, ...

Note the dismissive quotes and the predictable ad hominem ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

wanderer085, is there a reason that you're avoiding the following ...

Just to grab one at random ...

So, tell us why one would expect to read of Jesus in the works of Dion Pruseus. For example, how many other messianic claimants did he discuss?

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

After all this debating i have come to a conclusion (not a uncommon one-Just more focused) Atheists and Such believe there is no god...Can i change that? I can tell Stories..Qoute History..Show Archeological finds...Uncover Mysteries..Even Explain Creation and the Human Anotomy...Maybe it helps maybe it doesnt... But in the end.. its there Decision...And when the time comes...and this person is face to face with God...and all things are revieled....then he/she will have to listen....but remember....

You didnt come from No where...Nothing did..it is Scientifically Impossible.....Matter of any sort..can not just appear......

And Jesus will Judge.... He will say..Be gone Evil Person I did not know you.....

He will know your life...he will know you didnt believe...... Are you a good person...im sure you are.....is there a place in heaven for you (Refering to Disbelievers in general not a specific person) Of course there is... But rememer when you come face to face with he is truth...Repent (just a suggestion)

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing"

Can i ask the Athiests (and such) a question?

Do you Believe in things you havent actually seen?
I believe you do...... I have read posts were People talk about Scientific Theroies and Hypothoses Both and more no different then Believing in God..(from a vauge definition)...You got to have faith.... Not Proof....

Think about it...Many had Faith the earth was Flat.....it was obviously Flat...Right? So much faith infact they travled to find the End.....
All trout History we see this "Blind Faith" We didnt need to see Before Believing..We just did...

So ill say again

"Blessed are those who Believe without seeing"

 

[dogsgod]

After all this debating i have come to a conclusion (not a uncommon one-Just more focused) Atheists and Such believe there is no god...Can i change that? I can tell Stories..

Qoute​

History..Show

Archeological​

finds...Uncover Mysteries..Even Explain Creation and the Human

Anotomy​

...Maybe it helps maybe it

doesnt​

... But in the end.. its there Decision...And when the time comes...and this person is face to face with God...and all things are

revieled​

....then he/she will have to listen....but remember....

You

didnt​

come from No where...Nothing did..it is Scientifically Impossible.....Matter of any sort..can not just appear......

No one is making this claim. The law of conservation, E=MC2, describes matter and energy as always having existed in one form or the other. E=Mc2 always was, it didn't just pop into existence, unlike Christians.

And Jesus will Judge.... He will say..Be gone Evil Person I did not know you.....

He will know your life...he will know you

didnt​

believe...... Are you a good person...

im​

sure you are.....is there a place in heaven for you (

Refering​

to Disbelievers in general not a specific person) Of course there is... But

rememer​

when you come face to face with he is truth...Repent (just a suggestion)

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing"

And you know this how? Oh yes, you have your special book of mythology.

Can i ask the

Athiests​

(and such) a question?

Do you Believe in things you

havent​

actually seen?
I believe you do...... I have read posts were People talk about Scientific

Theroies​

and

Hypothoses​

Both and more no different then Believing in God..(from a

vauge​

definition)...You got to have faith.... Not Proof....

Wrong. Science has more to do with doubt than faith.

Think about it...Many had Faith the earth was Flat.....it was obviously Flat...Right? So much faith

infact​

they

travled​

to find the End.....
All trout History we see this "Blind Faith" We

didnt​

need to see Before Believing..We just did...

So ill say again

"Blessed are those who Believe without seeing"

Yes, we know people once believed the world was flat, we know this because your ancient book tells us that the earth is flat.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

A. E = MC2 Show us that mass and energy are equivalent—so long as you multiply by the "conversion factor" of C Sqaured and in the fullest extent doesnt really support your argument.

B. My point was to explain that every bit of creation needs a creator..its rule .. can a fire appear without some other factors? Is fire Energy?...yes..Does it need a source...Yes....

C. Everythign has a ultimate source..... You can Trace the fire Started to a match by bill. You can Trace a new car design back to its designer, We can trace human and our nature back to a single Creator...God.....

Humans didnt just come from nowhere....its scientifically impossible...therefore somethign occured something or someone formed Man.....what ever that was it was by Gods hand......

There is as much Scientific Proof to "disprove" Gods existance (litterly 0) as there is to prove Gods Existance... You choose the former..That is your choice..and in an earlier post i mentioned my oppionion on that...

D. My "earth is flat" anology was meant to show...that People in nature beilieve all these theories thrown at them...yet to believe in God is impossible. If a scientist had a theory which supported The existance of god..Yor response would be "its just a theory" if a scientist had a theory to disprove god You would Quote it and use it as support...Your one minded as all Atheists...thats your thing...not mine....

P.S if i wanted a spell checker i would have asked :foot: Not being offensive but you went out of your way to point out mistakes O_O, and showing i dont spell check..doesnt prove your point about God either

 

[logician]

A. E = MC2 Show us that mass and energy are equivalent—so long as you multiply by the "conversion factor" of C Sqaured and in the fullest extent doesnt really support your argument.

B. My point was to explain that every bit of creation needs a creator..its rule .. can a fire appear without some other factors? Is fire Energy?...yes..Does it need a source...Yes....

C. Everythign has a ultimate source..... You can Trace the fire Started to a match by bill. You can Trace a new car design back to its designer, We can trace human and our nature back to a single Creator...God.....

Humans didnt just come from nowhere....its scientifically impossible...therefore somethign occured something or someone formed Man.....what ever that was it was by Gods hand......

There is as much Scientific Proof to "disprove" Gods existance (litterly 0) as there is to prove Gods Existance... You choose the former..That is your choice..and in an earlier post i mentioned my oppionion on that...

D. My "earth is flat" anology was meant to show...that People in nature beilieve all these theories thrown at them...yet to believe in God is impossible. If a scientist had a theory which supported The existance of god..Yor response would be "its just a theory" if a scientist had a theory to disprove god You would Quote it and use it as support...Your one minded as all Atheists...thats your thing...not mine....

P.S if i wanted a spell checker i would have asked :foot: Not being offensive but you went out of your way to point out mistakes O_O, and showing i dont spell check..doesnt prove your point about God either

Matter and energy have existed forever in the multiverse, therefore no creation or creator is needed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matter and energy have existed forever in the multiverse, therefore no creation or creator is needed.

And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.

 

[dogsgod]

P.S if i wanted a spell checker i would have asked :foot: Not being offensive but you went out of your way to point out mistakes O_O, and showing i dont spell check..doesnt prove your point about God either

So that's what that was about. Sorry, I didn't do that on purpose. My spell checker must have been on when I hit the submit button.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

"MultiVerse" = Theory, No Scientific "Proof" Less Proof then the Existance of God O_O Thats the reason for my earlier Qoute.... Your Believeing in a multiverse...With no Real Proof..But its so hard to believe in a GOD? O_O

I can find more References to the existance of god then the Existence of a MultiVerse O_O


@ Dog..not a prob ...sorry if i sounded rude

 

[dogsgod]

Truth, not at all.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

Cool

 

[logician]

And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.

Using the logic of god-believers, prove that it isn't true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matter and energy have existed forever in the multiverse, therefore no creation or creator is needed.

And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.

Using the logic of god-believers, prove that it isn't true.

You made a claim. I asked you to defend that claim. I did not ask for cowardly avoidance or some adolescent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Now, once again, please reference a single credible source that presents your claim as fact rather than hypothesis.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

Again...Please prove otherwise!
You Can't
There are alot of things in History we know true...and some because of Some sort of Biblical, Scriptural, or even Hyroglyhic,
Yet you cant show one Credible..well anything.... that shows Jesus didnt Exist ><

 

[JESUSDIEDFORUS!]

Yes your right TruthinCatholicsim, he did exist, he DIED for us...such a wonderful gift!!