Conquer Club

If you consider yourself to be very religious...
...and have read the Bible, please thoroughly read the Qur'an and reflect upon the differences.
...and have read the Qur'an, please thoroughly read the Bible and reflect upon the differences.

Then please answer these questions...
What is the driving force behind your current beliefs?
Would the other book mentioned be a valid thing to base your morals off of?
What are the differences in morals between the two?
If you were brought up to believe in the other book, what would the chances be of converting you to your current book?
If you found out that all religions condemn you to an eternal afterlife that tortures you simply because you didn't believe in it, what would you choose to follow?
Following up the question above, what would the chances be of you rejecting all of it?
Is there something to learn from these books or are we to take them completely literally?
Is society changing or are the books changing?
If everything is the word of 'God', what gives us the right to pick and choose that which we follow?
What dictates that which is correct and that which is false-in religion(as a whole)?

The answers to these questions are far too dependent on reasonable thought for people who deem themselves 'very religious'. However, that has never stopped them sounding off before.

eg:
'What is the driving force behind your current beliefs?'

honest answer: 'Because I am terrified of death and the insignificance of my own existence, and because i find it much easier to outsource my morality to an invisible hebrew desert god from thousands of years ago rather than think things through myself.'

given answer: 'god's love.'

It might be that neither option or whatever applies to me Maugena, but...

Beliefs that are driven by logic and reason? How many martys were there in the first century? Maybe there are millions who would willingly die for a lie, but who willingly and knowlingly dies for a lie and even a lie that promotes being honest in the first place?

I might be no expert on the Qur'an, but it's by one man and from hundreds of years after the first century and yet includes the verse of the sword? Christianity is focused on Him dying for trangressions of others and yet Islam coincidentally is a religion seen to treat Him as a Prophet who had His place on a cross of execution deceptively taken by Judas? If Islam is not a work of the devil, then what is? I'm not saying someone is good if they're a Christian and not good if they're not though. Who is good truly? Maybe He alone is a righteous enough Judge to answer that.

Is anyone condemned to anything simply as a result of unbelief? Sure that sinning does not naturally lead to negative consequence and that He did not take your place? What if He's not willing that anyone perish?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/2pet3.htm

What dictates what is true and what is false? Reality as opposed to whether or not something makes us feel good?

Maugena wrote:If you consider yourself to be very religious...
...and have read the cc bumpage forum

do you really think that the pope is online playing on a shoddy version of the risk board he grew up with a kid, and then when his 4 freemium games are played, he's straight onto bumpage to troll the bejesus out of any fucktards that will listen / read / argue?

Pedro waves to Bendict his popiness and then when he's not looking gives him the bird and aerial wanker sign

*slowly scans over OP's 200 questions...

...

...

...

When did Lionz take over Mag-gwayna's account?

get that avatar to ms paint and stick a big brown pipe in his mouth.

Lionz, are you seriously claiming Islam is the "work of devil", or is this just another of those "perhaps" things?

Pedronicus wrote:get that avatar to ms paint and stick a big brown pipe in his mouth.

I'm working on it tomorrow

heavycola wrote:The answers to these questions are far too dependent on reasonable thought for people who deem themselves 'very religious'. However, that has never stopped them sounding off before.

eg:
'What is the driving force behind your current beliefs?'

honest answer: 'Because I am terrified of death and the insignificance of my own existence, and because i find it much easier to outsource my morality to an invisible hebrew desert god from thousands of years ago rather than think things through myself.'

given answer: 'god's love.'

I kind of think that the true answer is "mommy and daddy said so". It's pretty obvious that if a very religious person in one place had been raised somewhere else, that they would be the religion of that place. When a person grows up in a town where everyone is a certain religion, and then he becomes that religion, its stupid to say that he picked it and knows its right. So I think its more a matter of having been told something and never being bright enough to ask any questions in life.

Seriously though, we should stop asking these questions. Think about how stupid religious people are. Now think about if there was no religion to keep them under control! With those people, its better to have something to scare them, because otherwise they would f*ck up the world.

Lionz wrote:It might be that neither option or whatever applies to me Maugena, but...

Beliefs that are driven by logic and reason? How many martys were there in the first century? Maybe there are millions who would willingly die for a lie, but who willingly and knowlingly dies for a lie and even a lie that promotes being honest in the first place?

You are once again arguing that because people were crazy enough to be martyred that they should be trusted. Its an insane argument in and of itself. People die for lies or fabrications or constructs of their imaginations all the time. In fact, the more likely they are to such insane beliefs, the more likely they are likely to die for them. You have mistakenly decided that because these people laid down their lives, that they must have been telling the truth, when more sane, rational people realize that they were absolutely insane in the first place, and everything they had to say becomes suspect.

If that was too long to read: Waco, TX. Hell, perhaps you feel the 911 terrorists must have been divinely inspired because they willingly gave their lives for what they believed in, and that allah is the true God, the Quran the inspired word of the one true God, and that all others are blasphemy. They believed it so strongly, they gave their lives to prove it.

How could people so devoted be wrong?

Maybe perhaps they were just crazy?

No doubt some of your inspired martyrs truly believed in what they were dying for. That however, does not mean they were right. People believe in new messiahs all the time. Its actually easy to get done, and Jesus did a great job of it. He preached pure logic and pure right and wrong, which is so basic and elementary, that most followers actually miss how inherently obvious his preachings were. He had a great insight for human psychology, and an unbiased view of right and wrong, and dispensed with the technicalities that hang most other new religions, and presented a religion and belief system that was so revolutionary, that he was killed for it. What is disappointing, is that in His name, so many have been wronged, and killed, persecuted, exterminated, or even simply discriminated against.

Again, yes, he died. Many at the time believed he must be the Son of God. One saw him rise. Many around at his time of life argued bitterly if he was God or not. Some came to believe he was and taught their children as much. Most that believe now, simply believe because they were told very early in life that he was. Most that were not, do not believe it. In other words, the reason people believe in their religion, is not because of some other-worldly divine intervention, but because of where they were born, and who was around them in their early years.

Some are more inclined to believe such things and not question them, and even go so far as to die for those beliefs.

However, dying does not make you right. It only makes you dead. Only being right makes you right.

Natty,

If believing that He died for trangressions of others is key to salvation and Islam ironically or not is a religion that treats Him as a prophet and yet as a prophet who had His place on a cross of execution deceptively taken by Judas, what should that tell us? What would the devil want to trick people into believing was false, if not that He died for trangressions of others before rising again?

George,

You might say I was raised in a new age/native american spirituality/far eastern philosophy type family. I even got into witchcraft back in the day and am not sure if I've walked into a church building ten times perhaps. Is there a neat little box that I personally fit in, iyo?

AAFitz,

Would there not be a difference between simply dying for a lie without knowing you were doing so and dying for a lie while knowing you were doing so? How many of the twelve disciples went on to become martyrs? All besides John and Judas? Was He seen to miraculously heal people and seen resurrected from the dead or not? Regardless of what actually occured on 9/11 and in general, what would Muslim dudes flying a plane into a building and commiting suicide because they thought a book was true have to do with disciples of Him becoming martyrs after Personally seeing Him perform miracles and after Personally seeing Him risen from the dead?

Lionz wrote:
George,

You might say I was raised in a new age/native american spirituality/far eastern philosophy type family. I even got into witchcraft back in the day and am not sure if I've walked into a church building ten times perhaps. Is there a neat little box that I personally fit in, iyo?

Yes, yes, you go in box number 14.

I'm not saying there are good church buildings and there aren't good mosques or synagogues. There might not be single good one of any of them? What if Muslims have been and will be used as scapegoats?

what the hell would Muslim dudes flying a plane into a building and commiting suicide because they thought a book was true have to do with disciples of Him becoming martyrs after Personally seeing Him perform miracles and after Personally seeing Him risen from the dead?

Why is christianity more correct than islam?

Why is the bible "the word of god" but q'ran is "just a book"?

How do you know what the disciples saw or didn't saw? What if they lied, or exaggerated?

I'm not saying I know what's true, but how about we weigh evidence together?

You might be comparing a collection of works written by forty or more individuals over several centuries with a 7th century work by a single man that claims the sun goes down in a muddy spring or something like that. I'm not saying a Bible is the Word of Yah or saying the Qu'ran is just a book though. You might say I have serious questions about Paul and treat things in Bibles as seperate works.

If Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53 do not refer to Christ, then who they refer to? Have you read words of an Orthodox Jew trying to explain either? And then there are even ironically things in a non-Christian blasphemous thing called the Babylonian Talmud that unmeaningly suggest He truly is Messiah? How about go here and CTRL F search the next two thousand years is the Messianic era?

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_97.html

Who knows what's actually been seen and done, but were disciples of Him willing to tell lies and even willing to die for those lies in order to support a religious worldview that's against lying at it's very core in the first place? Does it not seem apparent that quite a number of folks believed they saw supernatural miracles in the first century? Minds might be able to play tricks on people, but who thinks they saw a blind person see or a crippled person walk or a dead person alive without having actually done so? Also, if He had enough followers by 64 CE for Nero to have blamed a 64 CE Italian Peninsula fire on followers of Him, what should that suggest to us? Did guys from Judaea and Galilee somehow convince hundreds of thousands of gentiles living in Asia Minor and beyond to become Christians simply by telling them something was a certain way? Have Greeks not been infamous for an aura of intellectual superiority? Have you ever been convinced to abandoned one religion and become member of another as a result of someone knocking on your door and talking to you?

Lionz wrote: If Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53 do not refer to Christ, then who they refer to?

Or... perhaps the writers of the gospels, years later and years after jesus' death, referred back to those prophecies.

who thinks they saw a blind person see or a crippled person walk or a dead person alive without having actually done so?

Well, how about followers of the egyptian god Horus? He was born to a virgin, and his birth was announced by a star; his mother was called Meri; he had twelve disciples; he raised his father, Osiris (l-azarus...) from the grave; he walked on water, cast out demons and healed the sick; and he was crucified, descended into hell and rose again after three days.

All this supposedly happened 3,000 years before JC was even a twinkle in Sky-Daddy's eye. So, if you believe there were eyewitnesses to the virgin birth and the resurrections and the healing miracles and all the rest of it, remember that the gospel writers were beaten to it by thousands of years. I would hesitate before accusing them of plagiarism to further their own agends, of course.

how about we weigh evidence together?

What evidence?

but were disciples of Him willing to tell lies and even willing to die for those lies in order to support a religious worldview that's against lying at it's very core in the first place?

Who knows the motives of people who died centuries ago? Perhaps the bible is a work of fiction? It only takes one liar, and others to believe him, and the others don't necessarily have to be liars to repeat a lie they believe to be true.

Does it not seem apparent that quite a number of folks believed they saw supernatural miracles in the first century?

Certainly, but this does not mean those beliefs were true. They could have been mistaken, misguided or just plain crazy.

Minds might be able to play tricks on people, but who thinks they saw a blind person see or a crippled person walk or a dead person alive without having actually done so?

You know how rumours are born?

Also, if He had enough followers by 64 CE for Nero to have blamed a 64 CE Italian Peninsula fire on followers of Him, what should that suggest to us?

The facts about Nero and his reign are very ambiguous and of questionable credibility. Most if not all historical accounts about Nero were written by his enemies who might have had ulterior motives to portray him in a bad light.

Did guys from Judaea and Galilee somehow convince hundreds of thousands of gentiles living in Asia Minor and beyond to become Christians simply by telling them something was a certain way?

It is called peer pressure. Do you not understand psychology of the masses? Also, again, we do not and can not know the motives of people who have been dead for centuries.

Have Greeks not been infamous for an aura of intellectual superiority?

People might associate Greeks with intellect, but does it follow that all Greeks are intelligent?

Have you ever been convinced to abandoned one religion and become member of another as a result of someone knocking on your door and talking to you?

Are you saying this kind of thing doesn't happen?

Heavy,

Why would Gospel writers not refer back to Old Testament prophecy?

And do you have a single pre-1990 source for anything in the second part? Whether you do or not, if there was prophecy about Him from for hundreds of years before the first century and there were angelic beings against Him who were aware of it hundreds of years before the first century, should it not make sense if some of them tried to mock that and even tried to kill off Hebrew males at one or more point in history? If there is 2,000 plus year old scripture concerning Yahushua that has to do with Name and family line and place of birth and places of growing up and being betrayed for certain amount of money and being betrayed by a friend and being abandoned by friends and way of death and timing of death and having garments parted and being offered vinegar and sky being darkened during day and being resurrected and timing between death and resurrection and more, what can we do to explain it?

Natty,

How about evidence in general? What do you want to determine the veracity of?

You might bring up things that are not simply a matter of whether or not there was one liar. There was what? No Christian on earth in 30 CE and hundreds of thousands or something by 64 CE? What happened between then? Maybe there is no honest report about Nero and no honest historical document ever written about anything for all I know, but maybe we're even living in a Matrix imagining stuff for all I know and we should draw a line somewhere and shouldn't simply choose to believe something if it helps support what we already believe. That might be easier said that done for you and me and everyone though. It might be that pride and auras of intellectial superiority in people can make it harder to convince them of things, but I wasn't meaning to say Greeks were intelligent and came across wrong maybe. I'm not saying it's the case that there's never been a single person convinced to abandoned one religion and become member of another as a result of someone knocking on their door and talking to them, but how many folks were convinced by travelling Jews to become Christians in the first century?

What if Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53 are true and they weren't written by someone who was mistaken or misguided or plain crazy?

Lionz,
No one is saying that you can't believe in whatever you choose to believe in. Religion is a very personal issue.

However it becomes a problem when you try to claim that your religion is backed by some kind of evidence because it isn't. There's no solid evidence that anything written in the bible has ever happened. And if you need such evidence to believe then your faith is not strong enough.

How about evidence in general? What do you want to determine the veracity of?

How about any scientifically verifiable evidence, about anything you claim, instead of using the bible as "evidence"? Just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it true. A few hundred years ago the majority of people would have said the Earth is definitely flat. Yet, they were mistaken.

In the eyes of science, the Bible is just a book like any other book. Lots of people believe it is the word of god, but then again, lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

You might bring up things that are not simply a matter of whether or not there was one liar. There was what? No Christian on earth in 30 CE and hundreds of thousands or something by 64 CE? What happened between then?

Who knows? The point is there's no reliable evidence either way. We know bits and pieces of the general events back then, but even the existence of Jesus, as such as he was portrayed in the Bible, cannot be verified.

You may choose to believe things happened a certain way, but that is again between you and your god.

Maybe there is no honest report about Nero and no honest historical document ever written about anything for all I know, but maybe we're even living in a Matrix imagining stuff for all I know and we should draw a line somewhere and shouldn't simply choose to believe something if it helps support what we already believe.

Ah, the matrix argument. It's sort of flawed logic but what the hey, I'll go along with it.

There's no evidence that would suggest that we live in a matrix. Whether we do or not is irrelevant, since such a claim cannot be proved either way. We can only settle with observing what can be observed and drawing conclusions from that.

Similarly, there's no solid evidence about events 2000 years ago. You can choose to believe we live in a matrix, and you can choose to believe whatever you want about what happened 2000 years ago. But you can't claim your belief is supported by evidence if you cannot present such evidence.

That might be easier said that done for you and me and everyone though. It might be that pride and auras of intellectial superiority in people can make it harder to convince them of things, but I wasn't meaning to say Greeks were intelligent and came across wrong maybe.

So what were you going to say?

I'm not saying it's the case that there's never been a single person convinced to abandoned one religion and become member of another as a result of someone knocking on their door and talking to them, but how many folks were convinced by travelling Jews to become Christians in the first century?

I don't know. Do you? If so, how?

What if Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53 are true and they weren't written by someone who was mistaken or misguided or plain crazy?

So what if they are? I don't know what is said in those verses, but it's irrelevant - I'm not saying that they can't be true. It is possible. But it is also possible that they aren't. And we don't know are they or not, and again we are at the point where it becomes a matter of personal belief.

I might have never read an original of anything in there, but what do you want in terms of scientifically verifiable evidence? Want evidence for Eden events or nephilim or the flood or Sodom or the Exodus crossing or David or Yahushua or? Even if you've convinced yourself there's not evidence for something, can you honestly claim there's no evidence for something without having seen everything there is to see?

I might not really need evidence for anything, but who should believe something simply out of a desire to do so even if it can seem cool for someone to say they have faith without a need for evidence? And consider a version of 1 Peter 3:15?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/1pet3.htm

Is there anyone who lived over a thousand years ago who has an existance that can be verified in your opinion and if there's no solid evidence for a two thousand plus year old event, then what are we to believe? What would it take for you to believe that He walked on earth and healed people and rose from the dead? How cool would it be to time travel back in a dream state and interact with stuff without changing anything permanently? : )

I asked one or more question concerning Greek self-perceived intellectual superiority that was meant to hint at the unlikelihood of some evangelistic first century Jews convincing first century Greeks to drop polytheistic religion in order to worship a Jew instead without something miraculous being involved maybe, but it might be that I'm not sure what I meant now or what a Greek has perceived and it might be that this is a run-on sentence that stuff is said wrong in. I don't know how many folks were convinced by travelling Jews to become Christians in the first century or even if the first century existed in reality maybe, but what does evidence suggest if it's claimed that Nero blamed the fire on followers of Him?

A very fine last section by you that I really appreciate? We might have a number of things in common. What do we really know when it comes down to it?

I might have never read an original of anything in there, but what do you want in terms of scientifically verifiable evidence? Want evidence for Eden events or nephilim or the flood or Sodom or the Exodus crossing or David or Yahushua or? Even if you've convinced yourself there's not evidence for something, can you honestly claim there's no evidence for something without having seen everything there is to see?

Nobody can learn all the information in the world. However, you do not need to count all the stars in the sky to know there are lots of them.

However, if evidence was presented to me of something, that conflicts my earlier conception of it, I would be willing to change my mind if the evidence was convincing enough.

I might not really need evidence for anything, but who should believe something simply out of a desire to do so even if it can seem cool for someone to say they have faith without a need for evidence? And consider a version of 1 Peter 3:15?

Faith, by definition, does not require evidence. Knowledge on the other hand does. If you want to believe something to be true without being able to prove it so, you are doing do out of faith, not out of knowledge.

Religion is based on faith. If one day it would be proven that god exists, faith - and therefore religion - would become meaningless.

If you cannot accept things to be true without evidence, if you cannot have blind faith in something, then religion is not for you.

Is there anyone who lived over a thousand years ago who has an existance that can be verified in your opinion and if there's no solid evidence for a two thousand plus year old event, then what are we to believe?

Yes, there are historical figures who have almost certainly lived. However, the further back in time you go, the less is known of the events, simply because information of those times has not been preserved very well. If we take ancient romans for example, or egyptians, we know quite accurately how large their empires were at what year, we know approximately the years of birth and death of political leaders, and when they ruled, and what they did. We do not know the names of every egyptian slave from the year 1528 BCE, nor do we know what Julius Caesar had for breakfast 3 weeks before his 15th birthday.

What are we to believe you ask? That's up to each individual to decide for himself. There's no shortcut to these things. You need to think for yourself and make your own conclusions, and not accept something to be true just because lots of people think so.

Lots of organized religions and churches don't want you to think for yourself. They want you to accept what they spoon-feed you - and it works for lots of people, because thinking about these things on their own is quite a chore, and lots of people feel more comfortable when they have a ready-made package of beliefs they can just accept because they know lots of other people believe the same way, and hey, if they're wrong, at least they're not wrong alone. Result: Fast food religion.

What would it take for you to believe that He walked on earth and healed people and rose from the dead?

Evidence. I don't think it can ever be proven though, unless a time machine or similar is invented.

For the record, I myself believe that a person known as Jesus has once lived, but I don't believe he was "the son of god", not in the biblical sense anyway. (IF there is a god, who has created everything, then aren't we all sons and daughters of this god, and if so, why would Jesus be any more special than the rest of us?)

How cool would it be to time travel back in a dream state and interact with stuff without changing anything permanently?

I must admit it would be pretty cool.

I asked one or more question concerning Greek self-perceived intellectual superiority that was meant to hint at the unlikelihood of some evangelistic first century Jews convincing first century Greeks to drop polytheistic religion in order to worship a Jew instead without something miraculous being involved maybe, but it might be that I'm not sure what I meant now or what a Greek has perceived and it might be that this is a run-on sentence that stuff is said wrong in. I don't know how many folks were convinced by travelling Jews to become Christians in the first century or even if the first century existed in reality maybe, but what does evidence suggest if it's claimed that Nero blamed the fire on followers of Him?

How do you know the christians didn't set those fires? If I recall correctly, it has been theorized that this may be the case. However there's no real evidence either way.

A very fine last section by you that I really appreciate? We might have a number of things in common. What do we really know when it comes down to it?

Well, if we want to tread in the realm of philosophy... then we don't know anything. However I'd say we can reasonably assume some things, that have been observed by ourselves or other people that we can reasonably assume to be telling the truth. However, common sense must be applied, and if there is something we can't know the answer for, it is up to us to decide what we believe the answer to be, but also we must remember that such a belief is not certain and can prove to be false in the long run. We must also remember that a belief is only that and not present it as fact to other people.

Back to the original question of this thread:

OK, I have not "thoroughly read" the Qur'an, but I am not ignorant of it. I have read excerpts. Its teachings were a major part of the course on the modern middle east that was part of my history degree at the University of Connecticut (note: not Podunk Bible institute) taught by Dr. Reed, a leading scholar in the field who considers himself a muslim. It was also part of the "Western Religions" course I took at Conn College; once again, a major, secular, liberal arts institution.

"Christianity" as is too often practiced in churches isn't significantly different from Islam, or any other religion. It's a place and time to attend a ritual, and some moral do-s and don't-s to obey, accompanied by various admixtures of guilt and reassurance. It's an environment for people who like to be told what to do to be told, and for those who like to tell others what to do to tell them. You could take out the Biblical names and plug in something else and it would be essentially the same.

What is actually written in the Bible, if not read through the lens of almost 2000 years of religion, is unique.

Instead of being about outward actions, it's about relationship. Instead of being about what you do, it's about what He did. The Creator and transcendent God became one of us so he could himself suffer any and all consequences of our misdeeds. By means of that he invites us into a relationship as his own child, where nothing is by compulsion, everything is motivated by love. There is also no guilt: all virtues that are asked by him are given by him for the asking, and while they are being worked in to replace the vices, any failures to live up to them have already been forgiven before they occur.

This is radically different from anything in Islam or in any other religion, including what is known as “Christianity”. The difference is the cross and its true meaning. "Tetelestai -- It is finished."

Lionz wrote:Heavy,

Why would Gospel writers not refer back to Old Testament prophecy?

And do you have a single pre-1990 source for anything in the second part? Whether you do or not, if there was prophecy about Him from for hundreds of years before the first century and there were angelic beings against Him who were aware of it hundreds of years before the first century, should it not make sense if some of them tried to mock that and even tried to kill off Hebrew males at one or more point in history? If there is 2,000 plus year old scripture concerning Yahushua that has to do with Name and family line and place of birth and places of growing up and being betrayed for certain amount of money and being betrayed by a friend and being abandoned by friends and way of death and timing of death and having garments parted and being offered vinegar and sky being darkened during day and being resurrected and timing between death and resurrection and more, what can we do to explain it?

Well, if we are gospel writers years after JC's death trying to drum up support, then we check our scripture and we make sure that our version of events includes as much 'fulfilled prophecy' as possible. It's called 'creative hindsight'. Well it is in my house, and it's a barrel of laughs here I can tell you.

as for the egyptian stuff - the sources are as old as the pharaohs.

put it this way:
you read the gospels, and decide that jesus fulfilled all those OT prophecies.
A sceptic might read the gospels and decide that as they were written many years after JC's death, that their writers, keen to encourage the spread of this new religion, made damn sure their accounts tallied with the OT.
An egyptologist might read the gospels and say, 'holy shit! that sounds just like horus!'

it's not outlandish to think that the gospel writers borrowed from existing myths to strenthen their account. Easter and Christmas were both pagan festivals that were appropriated by christians, for example. Always been lots of borrowing going on.

Natty,

How about we examine stuff together? I brought up topics or something you can choose from?

It might be that religion can be defined a million ways and we have more evidence for some things than we do for others regardless of how we define the word. Do you define religion in such a way where there could be no religion among angels in the heavens with direct face to Face access to Him personally? Maybe I should be ready and willing and able to provide evidence to others regardless of if I need evidence for something personally. I might have been rude and arrogant though.

It might be that you make one or more very good point and we should not accept something to be true just because lots of people think so. I might personally come across as a fringe conspiracy theory believing nut. When should a majority dictate what we believe?

Churches? You might be preaching to the choir in a sense. What if He has enemies who have tried to pervert things over thousands of years? Is there a single church logo in the United States without a sun image or a cut off cross image or a three slash image or an upside down dove image or an image containing a burning cross or a burning Bible? What if there is not a single good organized religion on earth right now and yet you have a Creator who desires to have a loving relationship with you? One who was born as a Son of man, rejected by masses, and killed after healing and speaking of wonderful things concerning love and forgiveness? What would you consider evidence for Him being Savior who healed others and rose from the dead?

It might be that He is the Father of all, but what if He's currently in a Temple that was not made with hammer or nail and He Himself was actually born as the Son? John 1:1-14 might be one relevant section. What if we have a soul and a spirit and a flesh body and so does He?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/john1.htm

I'm not saying Christians did or did not start the fire, but would someone trying to light a city on fire suggest to you that they were actually trying to honor Words of Yahushua?

Heavy,

Any reason we should assume Matthew and Mark and Luke and John were written by deceitful liars? What suggests to you that they were written by wicked men with a corrupt agenda? Does the Babylonian Talmud itself not unmeaningly suggest He performed miracles and does Daniel 9:24-27 not refer to specific timing of death regardless of when those four were written?

You say the sources are as old as the pharaohs? Do you have an actual text by a historian from over twenty years ago? There are people and have been people who want to deceive us perhaps, but maybe internet videos attacking Him should be more of a sign of that than words from the past suggesting we should love and forgive. And what do those four mean to suggest if not that?

heavycola wrote:Well, if we are gospel writers years after JC's death trying to drum up support, then we check our scripture and we make sure that our version of events includes as much 'fulfilled prophecy' as possible. It's called 'creative hindsight'. Well it is in my house, and it's a barrel of laughs here I can tell you.

Nice try, but I don't think the conspiracy theory holds any water. Let's try an easier explanation; truth is often stranger than fiction. If you want a good example of this, compare the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.

The writers of the gospels were very familiar with the law, the writings and the prophets. They would therefore be able to quote various references that even remotely sounded similiar because they saw a connection somehow. They generally were not direct prophicies, however.

Consider the reference in John to "break none of his bones." It might be a reference to that of Exodus 12:46 as to how the paschal lamb was to be prepared and eaten. It might be a reference to Psalm 34, but that applied to the generic "the just."