BF2S Forums Scientific proof that Christ was nothing but a man

Speculation. I'm not religious but if you're not going to present any real proof then I'm not going to belive you.

EVieira wrote:

Not all religious people think evolution is bogus. The chief scientist of the Genome Project is a very devoted christian. I recently read an interview of him, very good stuff. Can't remember his name though...

He was on the Colbert Report some time back, I remember the interview...[searching archives]

ATG wrote:

Jews find proof Jesus was just a mortal man.

lol

Kind of fits their agenda, doesn't it?

Lol, nice.

ncc6206 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Ok Jesus was a man. I can prove this. He was just working on my garden for 2 dollars an hour.

I can't believe no one is getting your joke or that they don't care to comment on it.  They must not have a Jesus living in their neighborhood.

Maybe its more like he makes the same joke anytime somebody says Jesus.

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Yes, of coarse, god helps them who help themselves.... right....
Well, in order to help themselves god thinks you should warship him?? How fucking selfish!!!
Have you ever thought that if god was really alive and such a 'nice guy' he wouldn't want you to waste your life warshipping him?? hmm??

And also, (this is what really gets me) I thought life on another planet would proove the bible was wrong about something, and i garentee, even if 1 fact prooved 1 part of the bible wrong, you guys would still count the rest as truth, even tho you have more proof saying its all fake, then all real.

You know the Bible wasn't written by God, right?

Of coarse it wasnt, cause he wasnt real. It was most likely written by some people who wanted a good story, and thought it would be funny if they could convince people its real. They tried it with big foot and crop circles, untill the original creators came out and told the truth

DAMN man.....at least have the kindness not to attack Bigfoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

mKmalfunction wrote:

Please stop making threads concerning Christianity.

One guy goes 'Jesus sucks!'

Another guy goes 'Jesus slays!'

One guy goes 'Evolution is absolute truth.'

and another goes 'No, the Bible is.'

All any of you are doing is going back and forth, slinging the same arrows that always get slung in these threads. Do you honestly think any of you will be able to make someone else accept Christ, or deny Him?

Pull yer heads out of yer ass' people.

qft, it's a never ending cycle going nowhere.  Just believe what you like, and don't force it down anyone else's throat.

sfarrar33 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Untrue. Evolution is the second-most proved theory of all time (quantum physics being the first). The whole of modern biology and modern microbiology/genetics REQUIRES evolution to be true.

But I never said we had all the answers.

no thats what i mean, it hasn't been proved 100% but it must be true otherwise everything else can't work, if you get my weird quasi-logic here
but thats what Topal63 kind of misses here

Topal63 wrote:

Uh, no we don't apply EVERYDAY-THINKING to science; or any other strict critical endeavor.

o'rly? i think you took me a little too literally there

Topal63 wrote:

You are absurd.

me? your the one who is without empirical evidence claiming that an important spiritual figure to one of the worlds largest religions doesn't exist and never did
all i am trying to do is point out that without empirical or logical evidence you can't really say that

Well, clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis is kinda stupid.

By "we don't have all the answers" I meant Dark Matter, but we might have an answer to that in a few months when the LHC opens.

This from the same people who made da vinci code.... claim we are decendents of apes...claim nuclear power is safe....agree with the right to bear arms...believe that the rich shall inherate the earth....and that anyone not from america is a terrorist....

america doesnt believe in God or Jesus,ok, but why spend so much time money and effort trying to convince others not to believe...
Anyone that "hell"bent and focused on destroying religion in the mind of the world must have a devious reason why they want it removed...i s'pose without religion, america could push its facist/nazi ideals without any real opposition...

"america will be your new god"
Worship is via pornography , violent films and gun ownership...


Funny how americans are always in denial about violence in america, or rape, or violent films, or gun ownership, or the right to freedom of anyone but themselves(we kill to "protect" ourselves is almost US motto)

Its sad that only approx. 50 years after ww2 and the horrors inflicted by "The superior race" another country not only tries to reassume that position but to justify it aswell...under current US reasoning, germans had a right to gas people to "protect" themselves..

I hope america suffers a natural disaster that it never recovers from....im confident it will.

Drakef wrote:

Superglueman wrote:

This from the same people who made da vinci code.... claim we are decendents of apes...claim nuclear power is safe....agree with the right to bear arms...believe that the rich shall inherate the earth....and that anyone not from america is a terrorist....

america doesnt believe in God or Jesus,ok, but why spend so much time money and effort trying to convince others not to believe...
Anyone that "hell"bent and focused on destroying religion in the mind of the world must have a devious reason why they want it removed...i s'pose without religion, america could push its facist/nazi ideals without any real opposition...

"america will be your new god"
Worship is via pornography , violent films and gun ownership...


Funny how americans are always in denial about violence in america, or rape, or violent films, or gun ownership, or the right to freedom of anyone but themselves(we kill to "protect" ourselves is almost US motto)

Its sad that only approx. 50 years after ww2 and the horrors inflicted by "The superior race" another country not only tries to reassume that position but to justify it aswell...under current US reasoning, germans had a right to gas people to "protect" themselves..

I hope america suffers a natural disaster that it never recovers from....im confident it will.

What are you babbling about? You make little sense or justification with any of your strange, outlandish claims.

maybe he is really drunk?

Spark wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Well, clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis is kinda stupid.

By "we don't have all the answers" I meant Dark Matter, but we might have an answer to that in a few months when the LHC opens.

oops my apologies i wasn't talking about the second line "But I never said we had all the answers" and should have cut that out sorry

Ah right then. Well...

Are there any better theories out there? Because I'm very sure they won't come from creationism.

you know i wonder that myself
there only seems to be two theories about why everything is the way it is
intelligent design is just creationism pretending it isn't really is it...
though what could they be?

Most of you are missing the point. You can not prove Christ existed or did not exist in the maner the Bible states. That is why all religions are called FAITHS...

That goes for evolution vs creationism, man made global warming or natural warming. Our arrogance still amazes me.

Believe what you believe. Stand up strong, but don't, I repeate don't forget to listen and learn from all those around you.

Last edited by stumpy876 (2007-02-26 10:03:04)

You are being absurd...!

sfarrar33 wrote:

...me? your the one who is without empirical evidence claiming that an important spiritual figure to one of the worlds largest religions doesn't exist and never did
all i am trying to do is point out that without empirical or logical evidence you can't really say that

Well you are, about this minor point / idea you seem stuck on, it's sort of normal even; common; I have been on occasion, why not you?

... And, this is even more absurd... this statement - above, and here is a small list of reasons why.

There is no such thing as "empirical evidence" of a non-empirical thing.
There is no "empirical evidence" in existence supporting the myth of Christ.
There is no "empirical evidence" to support the myth of Alexander the Greats’ divinity (that he was not the son of his father Phillip, that his mother was divinely impregnated by Zeus Ammon).
There is not a single piece of evidence to support an actuality of the Christ-Figure as a Historical-Figure. Since you think I am WRONG, provide some real evidence; and not junk-reasoning like a bunch of people “BELIEVE” it.

The stuck-on conception is the word: myth you are stuck on this idea; you have attributed a shallow meaning to the word; when what is implied is: uncertainty, meaning contained in the myth vs the literal happenstance of the myth; that acceptance of uncertainty means rejection of a value system (or all faith); people are often stuck on a word.

You’re expecting an absolute; a clear resolution; and trying to use logic; that only works when we are talking about pure mathematics; or simplistic symbolic logic. It does not work for actual things you can know about; the physical world (or history); those are arrived at / by pattern-recognition; corroboration of facts; duplication; repeatability; data; empirical evidence; in short generalizations by induction.

With your logic you could say a “teacup” exist on the other side of the Sun (not viewable from earth) orbiting around the Sun. And, until proven otherwise it is true; or reasonable; or at least possible. But that is the very definition of an un-true thing as far as humans can actually know things; it is un-reasonable; it is only minimally possible; there is no evidence to support the claim; it is discordant with known physical natures (utterly inconsistent; how did it get there?); and considering the minimal possibility that a “teacup” was made; then launched into orbit around the Sun; I am not required to provide “evidence” of non-existence (as there is no such thing; it is an absurdity).

There is no "empirical evidence" to support any myth. That is why they are mythical in nature; they are either inconsistent with the natural physical world - they utterly lack evidence confirming the possibility of it - or they lack a corroborating historical account someplace else. Alexander the Great is a Historical figure, but stories surrounding parts of his life contain pure "myth" (i.e. the divinity issue, the Gordian Knot, etc; others -> http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?ParaID=56).

The further you look back into human history the more mythical it can become (often).

I stand by what I said that the Jesus, the God-man dying resurrecting myth, is a common one in antiquity and it has no evidence period in existence to support the claim that it is anything other than a myth, a conflation of other myths, a distortion of other events, etc; - no empirical evidence period - none - nada - zip - zero. There is no empirical evidence in existence either historical (contemporaneous accounts by some 60-70 known historians who existed at that time the so-called world changing event happened) or archeological (we are not talking bones here; but other things like the city of Nazareth, would SORT-OF count, a settled Nazareth in year 30 CE would  SORT-OF count, but the evidence suggest that it was founded in 100-135 +/- CE as a place for transplanted; migrating Jews, it is non-existent prior to that (and it is not mentioned in the writings of Josephus; who described numerous small towns); the current Nazareth is a resettled City; founded on an ancient Necropolis).

While the existence of Nazareth in year the 30 CE (historical corroboration, or actual archeological settlement evidence like pottery shards); would help make the story more credible; it would not lift it out of the realm of myth and legend. The existence of historical elements in mythical stories is common; the use of a historical element does not make it less mythical; when we are talking about Jesus. Example: using the power of a Name, the knowing of an entities name (a demon) gives you power over it (an ancient mythical belief), and thus casting out a demon and into swine; and they running to their death into the sea - it is quite a long way to the sea from there (Gadara) - and it is rather funny that a demon as a singular entity was spread out into many entities; why not one pig; why demonize the whole it? It should be obvious. It is a statement of a Literal (literary; legendary; mythical) miracle; that common folk could relate to; mercy on the demon (not cast into the abyss); swine as a whole already rejected by Jews; power in the knowing of a name (just like it is power to praise God in the name of Jesus). The point is this: if evidence existed that Nazareth existed in or prior to 30 CE it would not support the myth; & the lack of evidence serves the other more reasonable conclusion - that it is myth.

‘Ntzr’ in Hebrew is an ambiguous term; translated in the Greek / Latin / English as “Nazareth” is an apparent error. It does not refer to a place; but rather Iesous Christos(Greek) Ntzr (Hebrew); Ntzr is also “branch” - meaning the lineage of; it refers to in English: Jesus, the branch of; so it could either really mean: Jesus the Nazarene (a branch of Judaism), or Jesus of the branch of Jesse (father of David, a king supposedly chosen to be king by God), either way the current meaning appears utterly discordant with the reality of there being a Nazareth (town or city) at the time of the supposed Event. Also that means this as well - all interpretations are mythical; not supported by evidence (historical or archeological). Meaning the above reasonable conclusion about 'Ntzr' is still not a certainty.

It is often a case of (more; proof-less; unreasoned) myth about a myth, and that is all this documentary is - (more; proof-less; unreasoned) myth about a myth.

On importance:
Consider importance; you say important; when I say mythical. At one time Jesus Christ (Iesous Christos) was non-existent as a myth; utterly unimportant. And at one time the cult of the new variant of the common God-man dying resurrecting myth was limited in number - fairly insignificant. After Christianity was sanctified by the Romans; it still did not sweep the world into one common belief. To those who grow up near the myth Christ and “believe” in it; give it importance; due so manly by reason of “proximity.” Proximity - is the most important reason why they are Christian; as children had they grown up Inuit and were not exposed to the myth; they would not possess any reason to accept it; nor would they most likely even know of it (dependent on the time period; and exact location of the Inuit). A Muslim is Muslim, based primarily upon proximity. A Jew is a Jew, based primarily upon proximity. A Hindu is a Hindu, based primarily upon proximity. Etc; etc; etc.

And I stand by my claim that the story is mythical - it is the myth of Christ - not the actuality of it. And, there is no “empirical evidence” period to support it. Unlike Christ, the world shaking events of Alexander the Great are supported and are reasonable (though not all of it as some legend has crept into the account as well), this is a historical figure, backed up by: numerous corroborating accounts; and archeological evidence.

.
.
.
I will digress and offer this opinion,

A little more about importance:
… a value is important in faith even when the details are uncertain (and of course this --> IMO).
      This is an easy to admit realization - that the myth of Christ - is just that. And that does not diminish the value of it. If you 'believe it' and acknowledge that you most certainly do not possess certainty in faith; that elements could be mythical; legendary; etc; what you have is acceptable reasonable doubt - that all details or any detail is un-certain; you are then; as self; forced into a position of human humility; a common ground were everyone / everywoman / everyman dwells: between utter ignorance and the unknowable absolute complete & perfect truth.

       Uncertainty does not diminish the value it - unless you are willing to abandon the whole of it - that is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The acceptance of uncertainty promotes one of the very Christian values contain therein: humility, we are all sinners, let he who is without it cast the first stone, etc, certain judgment is not something easy to come by for humans in this reality. Now what values you glean from a more personal interpretation of the story - that is up to you. I have my own personal determinations of value upon God/Christ/Science and they are all based upon these 2 principles that have been demonstrated to me in countless ways: “perfect absolute certainty does not exist - and I am not entitled to this absurd position --> that it does exist” and all actual knowledge is arrived at / by: generalizations by induction (pattern recognition; based upon observations).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-28 14:08:12)