ZeitGeist

King Arthur? Merlin? Hell, any of the Arthurian Knights? Robin Hood? John Frum?The other point is where you decide to draw the line, at which point of there being differences between the idea of Jesus and the facts do you go "actually these people are so different that it isn't worth describing them as the same person"? If it turns out that Jesus didn't say the things that are ascribed to him, wasn't called Jesus and didn't do the things ascribed to him, was there really a Jesus? I consider Christianity evidence for Paul, not Jesus.

You just quoted me on it.

quote:

---

The theme is that he wants to believe in something for personal reasons rather than logical reasons-- something atheists commonly, and vociferously, charge against theists, which I find both interesting and hypocritical

---

.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

pft. all of his disciples have seen him. that was their job. even paul saw him. what, are they supposed to be his first witnesses and not see him?

So why are you doing the same thing you condemn? And condemn as hypocrisy, no less.What was that thing ... "Glue onto mothers ..." ... no it's gone.Perhaps you could remind me.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's a very good point. For instance, Ian Fleming didn't just make up the name James Bond; James Bond was an ornithologist and the author of a birdwatching book that Fleming had used quite often in the Caribbean.Now, of course, the real James Bond was not a secret agent, he neither had a license to kill nor preferred his Vespers shaken, not stirred.So regardless of the fact that we can find a whole host of documents corroborating the existence of one James Bond, including a number of his books, his birth certificate, his will, etc; it's still fair to say that James Bond as detailed in Ian Flemings novels is a complete fictional character.

Yes. Usually when I have this debate, which comes round now and again, I use both King Arthur and Robin Hood as examples.Robin Hood definitely existed, as (IIRC) did Will "Scarlet" Scathlock, and Much the bleedin' Millers Son. OK?I shouldn't be at all surprised if "John Frum" was (a corruption of) a real name. Which is more likely, that, or that one day a bunch of cargo-cultists just drew a name out of a hat? The Illiad was not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name ...Yes, I see your point. In the case of "Merlin" for example, there may have been a man, but by now he's entirely a myth, it would be silly to claim that he existed. In the case of Jesus, I think it reasonable to call the guy "Jesus", and maintain that he existed.I also think that Buddha existed, but I discount the story that at the moment of his birth, he exclaimed: "I alone in Heaven and Earth am the honored one". He did, however, found a sramanical religion around 2500 years ago, it would be silly to doubt it.

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand your response.

The good thing about Buddhism though is that it makes no difference to a Buddhist's faith whether Siddartha existed or not.I think Jar is the only 'Christian' I have met whose faith doesn't depend on an historical Jesus.That's if he is a TrueChristian.

Kinda true. The club we call Christianity is based on an assumption that there was a historical individual Jesus and that that individual likely influenced a lot of people.To that extent, to belong to the club "Christian" you must at least believe that Jesus did exist and that Jesus is actually pretty much who the stories claim he was.What I have said though, is even if the stories are nothing more than tales told round the campfire, the lessons and message contained in them are still valid.If it were proven that the character "Jesus" never really existed, was totally a creation of fiction, then the Club would need to take a look at some of its bylaws. That would not necessarily mean Christianity would cease to exist as there are many examples of clubs and organizations based on fictional characters, from Trekkies to The Baker Street Irregulars.What I have pointed out though, many times here at EvC, is that even if Jesus historical existence could be proven, even if we found the expense report entry for five loaves and two fishies, it would not address the question of Jesus Divinity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Since we don't have any evidence to the contrary, I hardly see how its not a legitimate question. What was "snide" about it? I was just illustrating a point. Only if you want to. *shrugs*

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

But you will just rely on the fact that the gospels could be inaccurate. So what difference will it make to you?

---

I was saying that if I answer the question below, you can simply rely on your incredulity concerning the accuracy of the Bible. If I give you scripture that backs up Jesus claiming to be God, you may attempt to rely on this. So, again, will it really matter either way for me to provide a scriptural basis?

quote:

---

Sure He did.

---

The trinitarian concept (3=1):"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

​

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

​

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

​

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

​

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." -John 1:1-14"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." -John 10:30-33"They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I AM." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." -Luke 22:70-71"I am he," Jesus said. And Judas the traitor was standing there with them. When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground." -John 18:5"God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" -Exodus 3:14“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” -Philippians 2:5-11God is Jesus, Jesus is God.Which is consistent with the prophecies concerning the messiah:“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” -Micah 5:2“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ”Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” -Isaiah 9:6-7

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Tell, NJ, me do you actually READ the Bible ? You know, as in reading the verses in context ?John 18:4-5 So tell me, how is Jesus claiming to be God in John 18:5 ?

if you insist on being cynical and assholish, everyone around you will seem cynical and assholish. how would his witnessing disciples spread the word without seeing him?

You are a rediculous human being Juggernaught...using the bible as your sole reference in proving Jesus is God is the same as me using the movie Zeitgeist to prove anything it said was true. Do you see the similarity here? This is me pretending to be you: "I believe that religion is purely based on astology because in the movie Zeitgeist it says that it does. And if you want proof, I'll quote words from the movie itself".OMG (g stands for goodness btw) the hypocrisy and outright LIE!! Religion numbs you doesn't it...Praising Jesus as your lord and savior puts you in a euphoric state doesn't it? Well I say if you want to lie to yourself to sustain this euphoric feeling, than have fun and enjoy buddy. You're only missing out on what this world has to really offer, and that is INFINITE beauty and INFINITE mystery. I will never answer another one of your responses ever again.

If you insist on being obtuse, you won't see what is plainly meant. The fundamentalists are right about this, as they are about so much of the Bible. The Bible either supports fundamentalism or drives you into atheism. The only way it supports "moderate" Christianity is by moderate Christians not actually knowing what it says. It wasn't his disciples he was talking to. They had already seen and already spread the word to Thomas. It was Thomas he criticized for having heard but not believed, and everybody else by extension who would say "I need to see it to believe it.""Blessed are those who did the exact opposite thing you just did." How is that not criticism? Do you think Thomas bowed to Jesus because he was happy? No, it was the sting of his rebuke that drove him to his knees; it was the realization that he'd just pissed off Jesus that sent him down in supplication.