|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 29, 2018 17:12:35 GMT
If he was serious, I'd call some local scientists and take them and Jim on a trip to the local morgue. Easy enough claim to prove. No way would I take the word of any random witnesses. This, pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 29, 2018 21:05:43 GMT
Imagine for a moment that you're having a conversation with a close friend. Let's say his name is Jim. You've always thought of Jim as a fairly normal person. Anyway during the conversation, Jim tells you that he has the ability to raise people from the dead. How do you think you would respond to this claim? And how would it effect the way you think about him? Jesus, the man, was a charlatan. It's that simple. Two thousand years ago, people were more gullible than they are today.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 29, 2018 21:07:25 GMT
I'd say, "That's awesome Jim. Now pass the joint." Sidenote: Jim doesn't smoke(or blaize) or drink. Don’t trust a man who doesn’t drink. I don’t think I’m friends with Jim. ::smoke1::
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 21:15:28 GMT
Imagine for a moment that you're having a conversation with a close friend. Let's say his name is Jim. You've always thought of Jim as a fairly normal person. Anyway during the conversation, Jim tells you that he has the ability to raise people from the dead. How do you think you would respond to this claim? And how would it effect the way you think about him? Jesus, the man, was a charlatan. It's that simple. Two thousand years ago, people were more gullible than they are today. Charlatan?! Didn't he back up everything he said? According to the story there were thousands of witnesses to his miracles. So, no, it really isn't that simple.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 22:07:18 GMT
Jesus, the man, was a charlatan. It's that simple. Two thousand years ago, people were more gullible than they are today. Charlatan?! Didn't he back up everything he said? According to the story there were thousands of witnesses to his miracles. So, no, it really isn't that simple. ...according to the story!
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 29, 2018 23:13:26 GMT
Jesus, the man, was a charlatan. It's that simple. Two thousand years ago, people were more gullible than they are today. Charlatan?! Didn't he back up everything he said? According to the story there were thousands of witnesses to his miracles. So, no, it really isn't that simple. You hit the nail on the head. It was a story just like Hansel and Gretel or Gone With the Wind. Nothing was written about Jesus until 30+ years after he died. A lot of embellishment can take place in 30 years. The story of Jesus is a four day drive and an overnight boat trip from the truth.,
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 23:19:55 GMT
Charlatan?! Didn't he back up everything he said? According to the story there were thousands of witnesses to his miracles. So, no, it really isn't that simple. You hit the nail on the head. It was a story just like Hansel and Gretel or Gone With the Wind. Nothing was written about Jesus until 30+ years after he died. A lot of embellishment can take place in 30 years. The story of Jesus is a four day drive and an overnight boat trip from the truth., Hang about. First you said Jesus was a charlatan, now the story is unreliable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 23:27:21 GMT
Imagine for a moment that you're having a conversation with a close friend. Let's say his name is Jim. You've always thought of Jim as a fairly normal person. Anyway during the conversation, Jim tells you that he has the ability to raise people from the dead. How do you think you would respond to this claim? And how would it effect the way you think about him? I would say that I have that ability too. At work I say Quitting time and the dead come back to life.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 30, 2018 22:31:15 GMT
Hang about. First you said Jesus was a charlatan, now the story is unreliable? Yep; Keep in mind that I was not there and first-hand reports are sorely lacking, but... I believe Jesus was just like Peter Popov or just about any other evangelist charlatan. Jesus pulled a few magic tricks to fool the hoi polloi into thinking he was mystical. Then, in the 30+ years between his death and the first "gospel", the stories kept getting embellished. Eventually, he was turned from a mystic into a God; a God that allows Jimmy Swaggart and Kenneth Copeland to live a life of luxury while the hoi polloi throw money at them. As for a timeline, why did Jesus come about 2000 years ago. Why didn't God impregnate some woman 3000 years earlier so that Helen of Troy or Julius Caesar could reap the benefits of being born again? Why didn't God impregnate Eve and save Adam from his impure thoughts? They everyone could be saved by Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 30, 2018 22:47:50 GMT
Charlatan?! Didn't he back up everything he said? According to the story there were thousands of witnesses to his miracles. So, no, it really isn't that simple. You hit the nail on the head. It was a story just like Hansel and Gretel or Gone With the Wind. Nothing was written about Jesus until 30+ years after he died. A lot of embellishment can take place in 30 years. The story of Jesus is a four day drive and an overnight boat trip from the truth., Why do people keep saying this like it's correct...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 30, 2018 22:50:17 GMT
You hit the nail on the head. It was a story just like Hansel and Gretel or Gone With the Wind. Nothing was written about Jesus until 30+ years after he died. A lot of embellishment can take place in 30 years. The story of Jesus is a four day drive and an overnight boat trip from the truth., Why do people keep saying this like it's correct... Say what? Your meaning is not clear.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 30, 2018 22:54:50 GMT
Why do people keep saying this like it's correct... Say what? Your meaning is not clear. It's inaccurate to say that people didn't talk or write about Jesus until the Gospels were written as if Christianity didn't begin until the Gospels were written. At best we can only say that we don't know if Christians only vocally discussed Jesus which would be pretty stupid, but I'm throwing skeptics a bone.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 31, 2018 0:03:38 GMT
It's inaccurate to say that people didn't talk or write about Jesus until the Gospels were written ... Your statement is so emphatic. All you have to do to show me that it is inaccurate is to find a written document about Jesus that was verify ably written before Jesus died. SHOW ME
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 31, 2018 1:11:39 GMT
Say what? Your meaning is not clear. It's inaccurate to say that people didn't talk or write about Jesus until the Gospels were written as if Christianity didn't begin until the Gospels were written. At best we can only say that we don't know if Christians only vocally discussed Jesus which would be pretty stupid, but I'm throwing skeptics a bone. OK, I see your point, thanks. I am FAR from a theological scholar, however, I think the furthest you could go without evidence is to say:- 'It is highly likely that people spoke about Jesus or the story of Jesus in the intervening years since people wrote about it at a later date'. This still does not allow for any veracity as the popular game of 'Chinese Whispers clearly demonstrates. Verbal history has its place, butt as far as evidence goes, it could only ever be contributory IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 31, 2018 15:44:09 GMT
Jim would need to backup his claims under repeatable, controlled and properly documented conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 1, 2018 2:21:29 GMT
It's inaccurate to say that people didn't talk or write about Jesus until the Gospels were written as if Christianity didn't begin until the Gospels were written. Hard core theists love to blow smoke and make emphatic declarations without any documentation to back it up. And that really pisses me off. According to a long-time researcher, Cecil Adams, nothing was written about Jesus until 40 years after his death. (google CECIL ADAMS JESUS for his documentation) I turn on the TV and watch Kenneth Copeland, or Joel Osteen, or Jimmy Swaggart, and see them make such wild-ass demonstrations of faith healing in front of a packed auditorium and wonder how did so many naive, gullible, and desperate people happen to congregate in the same place at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 1, 2018 4:22:59 GMT
It's inaccurate to say that people didn't talk or write about Jesus until the Gospels were written as if Christianity didn't begin until the Gospels were written. Hard core theists love to blow smoke and make emphatic declarations without any documentation to back it up. And that really pisses me off. According to a long-time researcher, Cecil Adams, nothing was written about Jesus until 40 years after his death. (google CECIL ADAMS JESUS for his documentation) I turn on the TV and watch Kenneth Copeland, or Joel Osteen, or Jimmy Swaggart, and see them make such wild-ass demonstrations of faith healing in front of a packed auditorium and wonder how did so many naive, gullible, and desperate people happen to congregate in the same place at the same time. I'm not the one pretending I've got facts in my back pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 1, 2018 14:56:30 GMT
I'm not the one pretending I've got facts in my back pocket. One can not prove a negative. I can't prove that Sasquatch or unicorns don't exist, nor can I prove that that all humans are less than 12 feet tall. I'm damn sure none exist. Nor can anyone prove that there was nothing written about Jesus before he died. The only way to disprove a negative is to show a positive. You're the one that declared emphatically that there were writings of Jesus before he died. Care to show some or are you just blowing smoke like Peter Popov and Jimmy Swaggart.
|
|