FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Life after death...
Life after death...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was reading through that Jesus/religion thread before it got too big. People started touching on some interesting stuff about Quantum Physics and spirituality. It got me thinking of a related topic - do you believe in life after death?" nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. I believe when we die, that's the end. I don't believe in the afterlife" Agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? " Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Until we've died none of us will know, regardless of your belief. And we're basing our opinions on our peanut brain levels of intelligence which actually knows nowhere near enough yet." We do know that there has never been any properly verified evidence of people retaining consciousness after their physical bodies have died, despite it being something people have yearned after for thousands of years. Hence it's highly unlikely that there is life after death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true)." Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true). Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic " Might make it bearable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic " Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true)." I've been going to Asda of late | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true). Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic " I’ve been to Weston-Super-Mare.... whilst it’s ok.... not worth poisoning yourself for... though there’s are worse places for an afterlife....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. I believe when we die, that's the end. I don't believe in the afterlife" Im with you on this one. Id love there to be another realm but it doesn't seem feasible. Death terrifies me to the core  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don’t. I believe death is the end" awwww it's sad isn't it who started this making us think of death | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"nope worms get you end of....... How many hearts does a worm have? Well yep, worms and microbes definitely get your physical body. A few years ago I nearly passed away from poisoning. It definitely made me believe in life after death. I don’t believe in ghosts or heaven or any of that stuff. But my “self” definitely went somewhere that was a different level than this world. (I realise that sounds crazy - but it’s true). Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic " Aim higher...Weston isn't great, besides when we die everyone knows we go to Devon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don’t. I believe death is the endawwww it's sad isn't it who started this making us think of death " It’s the one thing that’s a certainty for all of us, I think we as a society need to stop pussyfooting around it to be honest. You can be respectful regarding death, but I don’t think it needs to be spoken about in hushed tones and and as if it’s something we should ignore if possible. I think if we were more open about it, we might all be better placed to help/deal with people who are grieving. Sorry OP! Not meaning to take your post off in another direction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place ...." Forking hope so! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so!" From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don’t. I believe death is the endawwww it's sad isn't it who started this making us think of death It’s the one thing that’s a certainty for all of us, I think we as a society need to stop pussyfooting around it to be honest. You can be respectful regarding death, but I don’t think it needs to be spoken about in hushed tones and and as if it’s something we should ignore if possible. I think if we were more open about it, we might all be better placed to help/deal with people who are grieving. Sorry OP! Not meaning to take your post off in another direction." Ive got 52 years at least to go I'm not thinking about it for 50 years yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place ...." I used to believe the same thing until it happened. In regards to different places - I don’t think there are any different places. It’s just another indiscrimatory process that we ALL go through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... I used to believe the same thing until it happened. In regards to different places - I don’t think there are any different places. It’s just another indiscrimatory process that we ALL go through." That's interesting, so no matter how good or bad you end up in the same place , doesn't that kind of undo every premise of afterlife though ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete bollocks. Where is it? How does it work? Should be getting crowded. Does everyone get one?...oh hi Adolf, how's things?" Crowded where? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Until we've died none of us will know, regardless of your belief. And we're basing our opinions on our peanut brain levels of intelligence which actually knows nowhere near enough yet." This is why I find it quite funny when people immediately denounce stuff like this. It seems more of an insecurity thing than anything else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in "Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination. If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Until we've died none of us will know, regardless of your belief. And we're basing our opinions on our peanut brain levels of intelligence which actually knows nowhere near enough yet. We do know that there has never been any properly verified evidence of people retaining consciousness after their physical bodies have died, despite it being something people have yearned after for thousands of years. Hence it's highly unlikely that there is life after death. " Very poor logic. You're basically saying that something that may or may not exist outside the dimensions we perceive, has never been perceived within the dimensions we do perceive. Well no shit Sherlock. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don’t. I believe death is the endawwww it's sad isn't it who started this making us think of death It’s the one thing that’s a certainty for all of us, I think we as a society need to stop pussyfooting around it to be honest. You can be respectful regarding death, but I don’t think it needs to be spoken about in hushed tones and and as if it’s something we should ignore if possible. I think if we were more open about it, we might all be better placed to help/deal with people who are grieving. Sorry OP! Not meaning to take your post off in another direction." It must be so much harder for people grieving the loss of their young ones when they don't believe in any kind of afterlife. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
"Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is. "What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well. There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree. The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" Did your experience change you in any way? Do you live differently because of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc). "I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Until we've died none of us will know, regardless of your belief. And we're basing our opinions on our peanut brain levels of intelligence which actually knows nowhere near enough yet. This is why I find it quite funny when people immediately denounce stuff like this. It seems more of an insecurity thing than anything else." I believe anything is possible. Just because there's no proof it does exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rather p_edictably yes. But I think it's a markedly different experience from our individual life. I believe it's likely we lose our identity in the process " I'm not sure. Intuitively that makes sense but i also know a lot of ghost stories that would suggest the ghosts are inbetween stages and in their former identity. What makes me believe them is how mundane the stories are. Literally just multiple people who don't know each other, reporting seeing roughly the same thing in roughly the same place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete bollocks. Where is it? How does it work? Should be getting crowded. Does everyone get one?...oh hi Adolf, how's things? Crowded where?" The 'afterlife'....yes I know... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view. "I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe that in the same way that water never leaves Earth, it is always recycled into some other form, neither does our energy, everything is made of energy and it all just keeps recycling ". Lots of energy leaves earth, if it didn't we'd be about 3000 degrees c  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
"They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" . Have you ever done DMT?. I have while traveling south America, the experience is very similar and certainly mind blowing. Your never quite the same! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context. "That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this. "Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this.
Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view? "Plenty of progressive Christian scholars and even mainstream ones like NT Wright, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan reject the eternal damnation view of hell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this.
Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view?
Plenty of progressive Christian scholars and even mainstream ones like NT Wright, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan reject the eternal damnation view of hell.
"Well I appreciate you answering the question properly. None of those are remotely close to what i would consider heavyweight theologians, especially John Dominic Crossan who is a heavily criticised. But i apologise for presuming you hadn't read as widely as you have. We'll agree to disagree on the quality of what you've read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was reading through that Jesus/religion thread before it got too big. People started touching on some interesting stuff about Quantum Physics and spirituality. It got me thinking of a related topic - do you believe in life after death?" Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this.
Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view?
Plenty of progressive Christian scholars and even mainstream ones like NT Wright, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan reject the eternal damnation view of hell.
Well I appreciate you answering the question properly. None of those are remotely close to what i would consider heavyweight theologians, especially John Dominic Crossan who is a heavily criticised. But i apologise for presuming you hadn't read as widely as you have. We'll agree to disagree on the quality of what you've read. "Ha! Well then you win! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this.
Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view?
Plenty of progressive Christian scholars and even mainstream ones like NT Wright, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan reject the eternal damnation view of hell.
Well I appreciate you answering the question properly. None of those are remotely close to what i would consider heavyweight theologians, especially John Dominic Crossan who is a heavily criticised. But i apologise for presuming you hadn't read as widely as you have. We'll agree to disagree on the quality of what you've read.
Ha! Well then you win! "I'm not claiming to win. You've proved me wrong in the sense that what you said sounded so ridiculous to me that i thought you must have pulled it off some YouTube comment or blog. You've demonstrated that there are theologians willing to stand by that analysis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rather p_edictably yes. But I think it's a markedly different experience from our individual life. I believe it's likely we lose our identity in the process I'm not sure. Intuitively that makes sense but i also know a lot of ghost stories that would suggest the ghosts are inbetween stages and in their former identity. What makes me believe them is how mundane the stories are. Literally just multiple people who don't know each other, reporting seeing roughly the same thing in roughly the same place. " I think it's important that a thing is both replicable empirically and makes strong logical sense. I've experienced ghosts but their existence just makes no sense. So I'm left baffled by what they are. Unlike other religious experiences, the experience of coming across a ghost also seems quite difficult to replicate. I worry that ghosts really came into existence in the victorian era, with the birth of the Spiritualist movement. The Spiritualists wanted to prove scientifically that the soul survived death. Out of this came the idea that spirits can manifest themselves in material form. This is palpably absurd as the whole point about spirit is that it is non physical. So I wouldn't lean too heavily on testimonies of ghosts in your views of life after death. I think people's near death experiences are far more interesting on that front. These, like neurosurgeon Dr Eben Alexander's in "Proof of Heaven" when he recove_ed from being decla_ed brain dead to tell of flying off to an amazing other realm, these infer the loss of identity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rather p_edictably yes. But I think it's a markedly different experience from our individual life. I believe it's likely we lose our identity in the process I'm not sure. Intuitively that makes sense but i also know a lot of ghost stories that would suggest the ghosts are inbetween stages and in their former identity. What makes me believe them is how mundane the stories are. Literally just multiple people who don't know each other, reporting seeing roughly the same thing in roughly the same place. I think it's important that a thing is both replicable empirically and makes strong logical sense. I've experienced ghosts but their existence just makes no sense. So I'm left baffled by what they are. Unlike other religious experiences, the experience of coming across a ghost also seems quite difficult to replicate. I worry that ghosts really came into existence in the victorian era, with the birth of the Spiritualist movement. The Spiritualists wanted to prove scientifically that the soul survived death. Out of this came the idea that spirits can manifest themselves in material form. This is palpably absurd as the whole point about spirit is that it is non physical. So I wouldn't lean too heavily on testimonies of ghosts in your views of life after death. I think people's near death experiences are far more interesting on that front. These, like neurosurgeon Dr Eben Alexander's in "Proof of Heaven" when he recove_ed from being decla_ed brain dead to tell of flying off to an amazing other realm, these infer the loss of identity " The near death experiences have been replicated using DMT or some drug like that. The ghost accounts i have are just too numerous and too mundane to be made up. I really can't think of a motivation why unrelated people would all claim to see an old man, dressed in old clothes at the bottom of a field. It's such a boring thing to make up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. Jesus spoke Aramaic for starters. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted and presenting it like it is.
What’s Aramaic got to do with it. I know he spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek and place names translate very well.
There was no word for hell (as a place of fiery eternal damnation) in the first century. So when Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which is the Kidron valley. What do you think those listening would here. It’s clearly metaphorical. And there are New Testament theologians that agree.
The images of hell as a place of fire and brimstone come more from extra biblical sources (Dante’s inferno etc).
I corrected myself on the Aramaic issue above. Gehenna is a real place and a by-word for hell. Are you trying to say that Jesus used
Gehenna to describe hell as literally being on earth in Gehenna as opposed to using it as a byword for an eternal destination? If you are then that is simply not an expert endorsed view.
I am putting that forward as a valid interpretation that is supported by some experts. I agree it’s not the dominant view. But it’s one that I prefer. Experts disagree on this.
They really don't. Flat earthers have their own 'experts' too. You clearly didn't read broadly on the subject and go with the balance of the evidence. You just cherry picked an interpretation that suited what you wanted to believe even though it makes zero sense in the broader context.
That’s unfair. Respected New Testament scholars do not speak with one voice on this.
Ok, tell me the heavyweight names that endorse the view?
Plenty of progressive Christian scholars and even mainstream ones like NT Wright, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan reject the eternal damnation view of hell.
Well I appreciate you answering the question properly. None of those are remotely close to what i would consider heavyweight theologians, especially John Dominic Crossan who is a heavily criticised. But i apologise for presuming you hadn't read as widely as you have. We'll agree to disagree on the quality of what you've read.
Ha! Well then you win!
I'm not claiming to win. You've proved me wrong in the sense that what you said sounded so ridiculous to me that i thought you must have pulled it off some YouTube comment or blog. You've demonstrated that there are theologians willing to stand by that analysis. "It would be great to have a proper conversation some time. You clearly have interesting opinions on this. And this forum isn’t the best place to go much further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" Sounds wonderful, if you believe this is so. Hold on to it, nevermind the piss takers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Valhalla !!!" Are you planning on dying in battle!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rather p_edictably yes. But I think it's a markedly different experience from our individual life. I believe it's likely we lose our identity in the process I'm not sure. Intuitively that makes sense but i also know a lot of ghost stories that would suggest the ghosts are inbetween stages and in their former identity. What makes me believe them is how mundane the stories are. Literally just multiple people who don't know each other, reporting seeing roughly the same thing in roughly the same place. I think it's important that a thing is both replicable empirically and makes strong logical sense. I've experienced ghosts but their existence just makes no sense. So I'm left baffled by what they are. Unlike other religious experiences, the experience of coming across a ghost also seems quite difficult to replicate. I worry that ghosts really came into existence in the victorian era, with the birth of the Spiritualist movement. The Spiritualists wanted to prove scientifically that the soul survived death. Out of this came the idea that spirits can manifest themselves in material form. This is palpably absurd as the whole point about spirit is that it is non physical. So I wouldn't lean too heavily on testimonies of ghosts in your views of life after death. I think people's near death experiences are far more interesting on that front. These, like neurosurgeon Dr Eben Alexander's in "Proof of Heaven" when he recove_ed from being decla_ed brain dead to tell of flying off to an amazing other realm, these infer the loss of identity The near death experiences have been replicated using DMT or some drug like that. The ghost accounts i have are just too numerous and too mundane to be made up. I really can't think of a motivation why unrelated people would all claim to see an old man, dressed in old clothes at the bottom of a field. It's such a boring thing to make up! " As I said, I've experienced "ghosts" too. So it's not that I don't believe in the phenomena but rather that, as ghosts existence doesn't yet make sense to me, I'm willing to entertain other explanations. It's possible but unlikely that my own mind made them up. They could be emotional impressions on space time or something like deja vu. I'm baffled to be honest. I think many ghost experiences are the result of over excited imaginations. Sorry if this sounds a bit politically incorrect but it always seems to be poor uneducated people who witness ghosts. But, as I said, I've had my own experiences. And that wasn't mere over excitement. So fuck knows  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. "omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha"You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" Hmmm sounds like the place I went on mushroom tea.....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha
You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested. "I'd contest it. I think there is a very convincing argument for Jesus never having existed. The beauty of it is that it makes more sense of more things than the other theories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha
You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested.
I'd contest it. I think there is a very convincing argument for Jesus never having existed. The beauty of it is that it makes more sense of more things than the other theories "There really isn't any remotely c_edible evidence. The evidence there is, is at the level of conspiracy theory clutching at straws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not any more." Well I'd thought I'd gone to heaven the other week! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" I wish I'd had an experience like yours op (albeit without the poisoning thanks ). It's so much less embarrassing than having a god experience and pretty much adds up to the same thing. Thanks for sharing. There are lots of us out there who've experienced this other side of the veil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha
You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested.
I'd contest it. I think there is a very convincing argument for Jesus never having existed. The beauty of it is that it makes more sense of more things than the other theories
There really isn't any remotely c_edible evidence. The evidence there is, is at the level of conspiracy theory clutching at straws. "I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested. " Hmmmm.... Roman's kept records, there never was a census at the alledged time of christs birth, even if there was there were several places called Bethlehem. Birthdays are important in the Jewish faith, so if he lived, how come his birthday isn't documented so the Christian religion had to invent one and replace a popular northern Europe pagan holiday with it? However Jesus was a common name, bung some stories together 700 years after the event and it's hard to disprove, but there is no more proof of Jesus as Seth, or Zeus, or Odin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really would want to know if I was dead, and have always wonde_ed if you know if you have died or not, it's something I often ponder. " Before you were born did you know that you hadn’t been born? You won’t have a clue you have died. Whether anything happens after that is just guess work. I hate the way peoplexstate as tho it’s fact that when you’re dead that’s the end. We don’t know until it happens. I know that I have been given clear messages from my dead mate and he was described to me to a tee, single crutch and signet ring too. It was comforting to hear and lessens any fear of death. I deal with death in a regular basis, to look into the eyes of dead man you can see that it is just an empty vessel, as tho the life that was inside it has gone somewhere else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not any more. Well I'd thought I'd gone to heaven the other week! "Smooth! (Bet your radio was playing Chris Rea on the way to meet me - Road to Hell!)  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha
You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested.
I'd contest it. I think there is a very convincing argument for Jesus never having existed. The beauty of it is that it makes more sense of more things than the other theories
There really isn't any remotely c_edible evidence. The evidence there is, is at the level of conspiracy theory clutching at straws.
I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right? "Read "did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman and then tell me you still believe that statement. Bart is an athiest by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested. Hmmmm.... Roman's kept records, there never was a census at the alledged time of christs birth, even if there was there were several places called Bethlehem. Birthdays are important in the Jewish faith, so if he lived, how come his birthday isn't documented so the Christian religion had to invent one and replace a popular northern Europe pagan holiday with it? However Jesus was a common name, bung some stories together 700 years after the event and it's hard to disprove, but there is no more proof of Jesus as Seth, or Zeus, or Odin." I recommend "did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman to you. Bart is an athiest and a serious biblical scholar. All your questions will be answe_ed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easier for me to believe the ,near death /brought back from death ,visions people have are caused by hypoxia/anaesthetic/random brain chemistry rather than an afterlife. Not many people come back with bad experiences, so are we all destined to go to the good place .... Forking hope so! From what I hear tell in the good book I'm definitely not getting in
Interestingly (to me anyway) the concept of Hell as a place you go to after you die isn’t very biblical. When Jesus mentions hell, the word that gets translated is Gehenna, which was a valley next to Jerusalem where child sacrifice had been practiced in the past, consequently it became a dark, no go, area and used as a rubbish dump. So when Jesus talks about he’ll, he is talking about a place that was a present reality. Not an eternal destination.
If hell is viewed in this context then I believe in it. There are people who’s lives are a living hell.
Poppycock. The idea that Jesus thought hell was a place on earth is not endorsed by the biblical scholar community. You seem to be repeating a rather odd idea that isn't widely accepted by experts and presenting it like it is. The interpretation is sorely lacking in historical context and easily debunked if you read any serious Bible commentary. omg you actually believe in the stories in the Bible how naive are we, you may have plausible argument but it's based on fiction ha
You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested.
I'd contest it. I think there is a very convincing argument for Jesus never having existed. The beauty of it is that it makes more sense of more things than the other theories
There really isn't any remotely c_edible evidence. The evidence there is, is at the level of conspiracy theory clutching at straws.
I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right? "There's a Jesus's myth theory, but it's very much a fringe view and the historical consensus is that he did exist. The evidence is the early letters of Paul, the gospels and a reference by the historian Josephus all written within a view years of his death. All we can gather from that though is that he was some sort of itinerant teacher who was executed. We know very little else about him that is not myth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right? "I'm not saying he definitely didn't exist. But you'd be surprised how compelling the argument he didn't is. He was only mentioned by a handful of independent historians several decades after his death. Josephus' account has clearly been edited by later Christians who added the mention of Jesus to it using different writing and ink. Another historian, possibly Cyrus (forgive me I can't recall), merely stated that the Christians believe a man called Jesus existed. That's not exactly compelling evidence. So it seems to come down to the bizarre speed at which Christianity spread out from Jerusalem etc. Why would it have spread so quickly if an amazing event hadn't just happened? That's the logic. But the logic demands that Jesus isn't just a boring carpenters son with a gift for moral oratory. Instead you need to accept Jesus weilded miracles to attribute him with exceptionality in order to explain the fast Spread of Christianity for that reason. A better explanation for the fast spread of Christianity is precisely that Jesus didn't exist and, instead, the story of Jesus was just a widely spreading myth that was contributed to by several tribes and flourished out from this multi cent_ed origin. Again... it's not conclusive but it's so surprisingly strong an argument that it caught me by surprise. Try reading The Jesus Puzzle to get you started... err if you don't mind having your views on this challenged too deeply. If you do mind I'd leave well alone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right?
I'm not saying he definitely didn't exist. But you'd be surprised how compelling the argument he didn't is. He was only mentioned by a handful of independent historians several decades after his death. Josephus' account has clearly been edited by later Christians who added the mention of Jesus to it using different writing and ink. Another historian, possibly Cyrus (forgive me I can't recall), merely stated that the Christians believe a man called Jesus existed. That's not exactly compelling evidence.
So it seems to come down to the bizarre speed at which Christianity spread out from Jerusalem etc. Why would it have spread so quickly if an amazing event hadn't just happened? That's the logic. But the logic demands that Jesus isn't just a boring carpenters son with a gift for moral oratory. Instead you need to accept Jesus weilded miracles to attribute him with exceptionality in order to explain the fast Spread of Christianity for that reason.
A better explanation for the fast spread of Christianity is precisely that Jesus didn't exist and, instead, the story of Jesus was just a widely spreading myth that was contributed to by several tribes and flourished out from this multi cent_ed origin.
Again... it's not conclusive but it's so surprisingly strong an argument that it caught me by surprise. Try reading The Jesus Puzzle to get you started... err if you don't mind having your views on this challenged too deeply. If you do mind I'd leave well alone "As a staunch anti Christian I'd very much like him not to have existed, but the evidence you have recited is evidence that he probably did exist. Josephus was edited yes, but the historical consensus is that there was an unedited reference to a Jesus who was crucified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right?
I'm not saying he definitely didn't exist. But you'd be surprised how compelling the argument he didn't is. He was only mentioned by a handful of independent historians several decades after his death. Josephus' account has clearly been edited by later Christians who added the mention of Jesus to it using different writing and ink. Another historian, possibly Cyrus (forgive me I can't recall), merely stated that the Christians believe a man called Jesus existed. That's not exactly compelling evidence.
So it seems to come down to the bizarre speed at which Christianity spread out from Jerusalem etc. Why would it have spread so quickly if an amazing event hadn't just happened? That's the logic. But the logic demands that Jesus isn't just a boring carpenters son with a gift for moral oratory. Instead you need to accept Jesus weilded miracles to attribute him with exceptionality in order to explain the fast Spread of Christianity for that reason.
A better explanation for the fast spread of Christianity is precisely that Jesus didn't exist and, instead, the story of Jesus was just a widely spreading myth that was contributed to by several tribes and flourished out from this multi cent_ed origin.
Again... it's not conclusive but it's so surprisingly strong an argument that it caught me by surprise. Try reading The Jesus Puzzle to get you started... err if you don't mind having your views on this challenged too deeply. If you do mind I'd leave well alone "Why would I read something by an ideologue who is less educated than me and puts forward a theory that has already been debunked on all sides by actual scholars. Doherty is just a writer with an opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main source of information on Jesus was from the writing of Paul, who never met Jesus, but may have known his brother? Kind of like bloke said down the pub really... A person who makes his living studying a book he doesn't believe telling me that Jesus must have existed in history... I would counter with King Arthur also existed. Along with Merlin, and all the knights of the round table. We have records of him written decades or centuries after his death too... Come to that Father Christmas, Superman, and many others are documented with back story. Just not enforced by as much burning and torture as the Jesus tale. " Are you anti-experts in most walks of life or just this one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a Jesus's myth theory, but it's very much a fringe view and the historical consensus is that he did exist." I accept that the academic consensus is a man called Jesus existed. But I find their dismissal of the myth theory a little closed minded and partisan. I'd suggest you read the argument for the theory yourself. You may be surprised. "The evidence is the early letters of Paul, the gospels and a reference by the historian Josephus all written within a view years of his death. " Haha you beat me to it. Right. So we can bin Josephus as later vandalism. The gospels, as you know, aren't evidence. And, if the myth theorists are correct, Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth in his letters. He talks exclusively of a "christ" and never talks of him in earthly terms. I think it's odd that a cult was formed around a guy who never existed. So perhaps he did. But we agree he didn't perform any miracles so the mystery still stands as to why he was portrayed erroneously in the gospels. Plus the war of Jerusalem conveniently lays between the events and the dating of the gospels. So any evidence would've been destroyed. Perhaps the gospel writers knew this and used it as a literary device much as horror writers today situate the unbelievable in the past, future, or foreign land. In the end, so much of the story was myth that it just feels like why not go the whole way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you anti-experts in most walks of life or just this one? " Are you anti experts in all religions, or just non Christian ones? Many religions have a demi God who moved the focus from vengeful gods who controlled their subjects with violence to preaching tollerence and understanding. Personally I like some of the religious values, and quite like to think that one person be that Christ, Seth, Krishna, Reverend Moon, or any of the myriad others saw the light and taught it to all. But I don't. I believe that religion life after death, heaven and hell, are all constructs of control to make large numbers of people do the bidding of the few. The state approved violence that enforces the texts of peace, tells me something is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a Jesus's myth theory, but it's very much a fringe view and the historical consensus is that he did exist. I accept that the academic consensus is a man called Jesus existed. But I find their dismissal of the myth theory a little closed minded and partisan. I'd suggest you read the argument for the theory yourself. You may be surprised. " Most bullshit is surprising. The academic community did not simply dismiss the theory, they investigated it and realised it's utter crap. A bunch of conspiracy theorists all referencing each other in a circle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you anti-experts in most walks of life or just this one? Are you anti experts in all religions, or just non Christian ones? Many religions have a demi God who moved the focus from vengeful gods who controlled their subjects with violence to preaching tollerence and understanding. Personally I like some of the religious values, and quite like to think that one person be that Christ, Seth, Krishna, Reverend Moon, or any of the myriad others saw the light and taught it to all. But I don't. I believe that religion life after death, heaven and hell, are all constructs of control to make large numbers of people do the bidding of the few. The state approved violence that enforces the texts of peace, tells me something is wrong." I'm not asking you to agree with the bible. I'm simply pointing out that you dismissed an award winning, PhD holding, princeton graduate academic with 30 years experience on the subject... because reasons. You comment about other religions doesn't make much sense, I don't think Muslims have to deal with ignorant people pretending Muhammad didn't exist and nor do any serious Jewish or Muslim scholars debate that Jesus existed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. Not any more. Well I'd thought I'd gone to heaven the other week!
Smooth!
(Bet your radio was playing Chris Rea on the way to meet me - Road to Hell!) "No, it was Chris Dear Burgh The Lady in Red! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would I read something by an ideologue who is less educated than me and puts forward a theory that has already been debunked on all sides by actual scholars. Doherty is just a writer with an opinion. " I expected better of you broken. Are you not even curious to read the other side? I've been fascinated by biblical research for years and am aware of the experts views. When I came across this book and Price's "Jesus is Dead" I was so curious about what on earth they were trying to claim that I wanted to read them for myself. To my surprise they were very compelling. I watched Price debate Bart Ehrman and was further won over to Price through that. At the end the adjudicator asked the smug condescending Ehrman what it would take for him to take Price's views seriously. He replied that he would need Price to become a recognised scholar holding a position in a prominent university. What a fucking arrogant and ignorant stance. The work should be judged on it's own merit. Can you counter the argument. If you can't... it stands, regardless of who wrote it. If you can point me at a thorough dismantling of Price's ideas I'm happy to read that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would I read something by an ideologue who is less educated than me and puts forward a theory that has already been debunked on all sides by actual scholars. Doherty is just a writer with an opinion. I expected better of you broken. Are you not even curious to read the other side? I've been fascinated by biblical research for years and am aware of the experts views. When I came across this book and Price's "Jesus is Dead" I was so curious about what on earth they were trying to claim that I wanted to read them for myself. To my surprise they were very compelling. I watched Price debate Bart Ehrman and was further won over to Price through that. At the end the adjudicator asked the smug condescending Ehrman what it would take for him to take Price's views seriously. He replied that he would need Price to become a recognised scholar holding a position in a prominent university. What a fucking arrogant and ignorant stance. The work should be judged on it's own merit. Can you counter the argument. If you can't... it stands, regardless of who wrote it. If you can point me at a thorough dismantling of Price's ideas I'm happy to read that "That's arrogance, not ignorance. History isn't science, if I was science then no, I wouldn't care who did the experiment because it should be replicable. But history doesn't work like that. It takes skill to get interpretations right and academics have an obvious advantage over book writers there. It's not just Bart who has already murde_ed these people in his analysis, nobody in academia takes them seriously. You're basically asking whether I've got time to listen to every fucking conspiracy theorist who can write a book. No i don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a Jesus's myth theory, but it's very much a fringe view and the historical consensus is that he did exist. I accept that the academic consensus is a man called Jesus existed. But I find their dismissal of the myth theory a little closed minded and partisan. I'd suggest you read the argument for the theory yourself. You may be surprised. Most bullshit is surprising. The academic community did not simply dismiss the theory, they investigated it and realised it's utter crap. A bunch of conspiracy theorists all referencing each other in a circle. " Have you read Price's book? That's simply not a description of what I read It's pretty grounded stuff based on current research. It's not whacky conspiracy theory bullshit. It's genuinely compelling biblical research done by a guy with a different slant. Shit! If they've rubbished it as a conspiracy theory they sound even more idiotic and partisan. People studying the Bible, partisan?!? Who would've thought? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a Jesus's myth theory, but it's very much a fringe view and the historical consensus is that he did exist. I accept that the academic consensus is a man called Jesus existed. But I find their dismissal of the myth theory a little closed minded and partisan. I'd suggest you read the argument for the theory yourself. You may be surprised. Most bullshit is surprising. The academic community did not simply dismiss the theory, they investigated it and realised it's utter crap. A bunch of conspiracy theorists all referencing each other in a circle. Have you read Price's book? That's simply not a description of what I read It's pretty grounded stuff based on current research. It's not whacky conspiracy theory bullshit. It's genuinely compelling biblical research done by a guy with a different slant. Shit! If they've rubbished it as a conspiracy theory they sound even more idiotic and partisan. People studying the Bible, partisan?!? Who would've thought? "No I've read Barts book where he has entire chapters dedicated to the arguments you describe and why they are bullshit. It's already debunked. I have no desire to go reading the original criticisms just like I have no desire to sit around arguing with flat earthers about why toilet water doesn't fall out of Australian toilets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just Bart who has already murde_ed these people in his analysis, nobody in academia takes them seriously. You're basically asking whether I've got time to listen to every fucking conspiracy theorist who can write a book. No i don't. " Wow! You're really closed minded on this issue aren't you? How fascinating. I'm clearly pressing personal buttons here which are primarily emotive rather than neutral and intellectual. So I'll back off. I don't have any no-go-zones like this, no books I refuse to read, so you'll have to forgive me for picking at your scab. Sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's impossible to not think along positive lines for a belief system that has surrounded your entire life. A man with or without a PhD raised under the auspices of a Christian society, has a natural inbuilt bias. When a person with a PhD from an eastern non Christian society investigates the history of a man who left no documents from an apparently astounding life, and finds facts to prove his existence, then I may give it more c_edibility. I included Reverend Moon in my list of similar suspects as he is recent, we know he existed, and claimed to be the son of God, so we called it a cult and dismissed him as a power mad lunatic. As I said I quite like some of the bible lessons, but not all. I believe we are responsible for our actions, and should try to do at least as much good as we do harm, which is my personal distillation of many religions." So you haven't seen the evidence, it's just wrong because the person writing it is the wrong race. The fact that he wasn't raised Christian, was one and then isn't means he must have biases he can't overcome. No he doesn't sound like a guy who changes his opinion when the facts change at all  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I've read Barts book where he has entire chapters dedicated to the arguments you describe and why they are bullshit. It's already debunked. " Apologies, just for my own interest, can you point me at which book? I'd like to read it. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's crazy stuff. I'd like to make my own mind up and read Bart's counter. Thanks. You can pm it to me if you want | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just Bart who has already murde_ed these people in his analysis, nobody in academia takes them seriously. You're basically asking whether I've got time to listen to every fucking conspiracy theorist who can write a book. No i don't. Wow! You're really closed minded on this issue aren't you? How fascinating. I'm clearly pressing personal buttons here which are primarily emotive rather than neutral and intellectual. So I'll back off. I don't have any no-go-zones like this, no books I refuse to read, so you'll have to forgive me for picking at your scab. Sorry "Yes i find it very frustrating that in 2018, any idiot who can write a book is given the same c_edibility as a 30 year, award winning academic with a PhD in the subject. In a subject where time spent, really is an advantage. That's not a frustration with you as such, we've discussed this before as broader societal issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I've read Barts book where he has entire chapters dedicated to the arguments you describe and why they are bullshit. It's already debunked. Apologies, just for my own interest, can you point me at which book? I'd like to read it. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's crazy stuff. I'd like to make my own mind up and read Bart's counter. Thanks. You can pm it to me if you want ""Did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman. Spoiler alert: he did. Bart doesn't believe he was divine though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I've read Barts book where he has entire chapters dedicated to the arguments you describe and why they are bullshit. It's already debunked. Apologies, just for my own interest, can you point me at which book? I'd like to read it. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's crazy stuff. I'd like to make my own mind up and read Bart's counter. Thanks. You can pm it to me if you want
"Did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman. Spoiler alert: he did. Bart doesn't believe he was divine though. "Oh dear. Just read the first review of Ehrman's book on Amazon and it's a tad disheartening... "Having heard of Ehrman's reputation I was disappointed in this book - he seems to do what he accuses many others of doing (both mythicists and believers) i.e. all too often he presented information or opinions as fact without supporting references or evidence. I was looking for a book that would cut through all the clutter and noise accumulated over the past 2000 years, focussing on the real historic evidence whether it be for or against the existence of Jesus. This book didn't do that for me - maybe I chose the wrong book." I'll try and get hold of a cheap copy as I suspect it may be somewhat underwhelming. But thanks for the tip regardless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete bollocks. Where is it? How does it work? Should be getting crowded. Does everyone get one?...oh hi Adolf, how's things? Crowded where? The 'afterlife'....yes I know..." Tacos with extra jalapeños... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I've read Barts book where he has entire chapters dedicated to the arguments you describe and why they are bullshit. It's already debunked. Apologies, just for my own interest, can you point me at which book? I'd like to read it. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's crazy stuff. I'd like to make my own mind up and read Bart's counter. Thanks. You can pm it to me if you want
"Did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman. Spoiler alert: he did. Bart doesn't believe he was divine though.
Oh dear. Just read the first review of Ehrman's book on Amazon and it's a tad disheartening...
"Having heard of Ehrman's reputation I was disappointed in this book - he seems to do what he accuses many others of doing (both mythicists and believers) i.e. all too often he presented information or opinions as fact without supporting references or evidence.
I was looking for a book that would cut through all the clutter and noise accumulated over the past 2000 years, focussing on the real historic evidence whether it be for or against the existence of Jesus. This book didn't do that for me - maybe I chose the wrong book."
I'll try and get hold of a cheap copy as I suspect it may be somewhat underwhelming. But thanks for the tip regardless "His book is pretty much going to offend everyone so bad reviews are not really an indicator of anything. Religious people won't like it because he denies the divinity of Christ. Conspiracy theorists won't like it because he exposes them and academics won't like it because they are snobbish about academics who "sell out" and write books instead of journal articles that nobody reads. He talks through every step of the logic, what words are translated to what, where the sources are etc. You can fact check what he says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to be inc_edibly ignorant to believe there was never a Jewish-born religious teacher known as Jesus and that he was crucified. Whether he was Devine is debatable but the fact that he existed isn't seriously contested." Going back to the original contestation... and in light of the review of Ehrman's book I just posted... it may be surprising to some others reading this that a book asserting the existence of Jesus fell short of making a convincing case for it to that reader. Would a book asserting the fall of Rome occur_ed have fallen short in this way? I guess this is what interested me about the Jesus Puzzle. I was just amazed that there was so little of anything really convincing and concrete that a case could even be made for Jesus not having existed. I understand that, to broken, this case is debunked. But I hadn't realised before how flimsy the argument for Jesus' existing was. So no... I don't think you have to be "inc_edibly ignorant" not to believe Jesus existed. It seems the evidence is slim enough or open to enough interpretation that this is currently a stance you could take. But broken is right... you'd be going against the current consensus of academia if you did. It will be interesting to see if that consensus changes over our life time. It's already moved significantly away from a miracle maker having existed. It doesn't strike me as too outlandish to imagine it may continue moving further and further away from the details of the gospels having taken place. But we shall have to wait and see. Not aiming this post at you broken. It's just a wider sign off on the issue for others curious to look into it all. Perhaps start with Ehrman if you want to know what the experts think... or maybe try Doherty if you're up for something broken would say is a bit more whacky | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell more..where did you go? I've always fancied going to Weston super mare. Although poisoning myself to get there might be a little drastic Haha I know you’re taking the piss but i’ll answer anyway. It was a place filled with colours I’ve never seen before in my life, and shapes that were constantly changing into other shapes. It was endless and I could see more clearly than I can see with my own eyes. Also I felt connected to everything that’s ever existed - it was an unimaginably comforting feeling. Like coming home after being away for months. I always describe it like this - imagine you’re on a website and you right click to “view source code”. It felt like I was in the “source code” for life. Again I know it sounds crazy - and even I find it bizarre because I’d never believed in anything spiritual like that until then. But now i’m convinced there’s more after death" When da we_ed is good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them "At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha. Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
"exactly this just because you can apply the Bible and Koran to your argument doesn't give it c_edibility  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right?
I'm not saying he definitely didn't exist. But you'd be surprised how compelling the argument he didn't is. He was only mentioned by a handful of independent historians several decades after his death. Josephus' account has clearly been edited by later Christians who added the mention of Jesus to it using different writing and ink. Another historian, possibly Cyrus (forgive me I can't recall), merely stated that the Christians believe a man called Jesus existed. That's not exactly compelling evidence.
So it seems to come down to the bizarre speed at which Christianity spread out from Jerusalem etc. Why would it have spread so quickly if an amazing event hadn't just happened? That's the logic. But the logic demands that Jesus isn't just a boring carpenters son with a gift for moral oratory. Instead you need to accept Jesus weilded miracles to attribute him with exceptionality in order to explain the fast Spread of Christianity for that reason.
A better explanation for the fast spread of Christianity is precisely that Jesus didn't exist and, instead, the story of Jesus was just a widely spreading myth that was contributed to by several tribes and flourished out from this multi cent_ed origin.
Again... it's not conclusive but it's so surprisingly strong an argument that it caught me by surprise. Try reading The Jesus Puzzle to get you started... err if you don't mind having your views on this challenged too deeply. If you do mind I'd leave well alone "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your judgement is clouded on this issue. There really isn't *any* reliable corroborative evidence that Jesus existed anywhere. The entire argument for his existence is circumstantial and relies upon him having performed miracles that we both know he didn't perform... right?
I'm not saying he definitely didn't exist. But you'd be surprised how compelling the argument he didn't is. He was only mentioned by a handful of independent historians several decades after his death. Josephus' account has clearly been edited by later Christians who added the mention of Jesus to it using different writing and ink. Another historian, possibly Cyrus (forgive me I can't recall), merely stated that the Christians believe a man called Jesus existed. That's not exactly compelling evidence.
So it seems to come down to the bizarre speed at which Christianity spread out from Jerusalem etc. Why would it have spread so quickly if an amazing event hadn't just happened? That's the logic. But the logic demands that Jesus isn't just a boring carpenters son with a gift for moral oratory. Instead you need to accept Jesus weilded miracles to attribute him with exceptionality in order to explain the fast Spread of Christianity for that reason.
A better explanation for the fast spread of Christianity is precisely that Jesus didn't exist and, instead, the story of Jesus was just a widely spreading myth that was contributed to by several tribes and flourished out from this multi cent_ed origin.
Again... it's not conclusive but it's so surprisingly strong an argument that it caught me by surprise. Try reading The Jesus Puzzle to get you started... err if you don't mind having your views on this challenged too deeply. If you do mind I'd leave well alone
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy..""we're all individuals" "I'm not" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself. "I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them "In the same way that flat earthers have breathed new life into debate with engineers about how to design planes that can fly around the globe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were "Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian. "Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
"Actually Muslims would argue that he never said he was the son of God so there's that interpretation too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually Muslims would argue that he never said he was the son of God so there's that interpretation too. " As nothing was written until at least half a generation after he was supposedly executed, roughly 184,600 words in the order of the new testament were probably never said by him, if it was a him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
"That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't. "That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe that in the same way that water never leaves Earth, it is always recycled into some other form, neither does our energy, everything is made of energy and it all just keeps recycling "Aboard the lovebus... love it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
"I think a Christian who believes in a magical universe in which a god exists is far closer to the whole message of the Bible than one who doubts this but believes some guy was born of a carpenter, preached moral lessons, and was crucified by the Romans. There are so many atheists in Christian clothing. If we assume the word "Christ" is just another name for god like "Jehovah", a Christian can worship Christ and find meaning in the allegories of the Bible. The demand of historicity is entirely erroneous imo. If the Bible lives and dies on whether what it recounts actually happened then it's a pretty thoroughly worthless tome that will soon be junked. It isn't. It won't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one. ""charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
I think a Christian who believes in a magical universe in which a god exists is far closer to the whole message of the Bible than one who doubts this but believes some guy was born of a carpenter, preached moral lessons, and was crucified by the Romans. There are so many atheists in Christian clothing.
If we assume the word "Christ" is just another name for god like "Jehovah", a Christian can worship Christ and find meaning in the allegories of the Bible. The demand of historicity is entirely erroneous imo. If the Bible lives and dies on whether what it recounts actually happened then it's a pretty thoroughly worthless tome that will soon be junked. It isn't. It won't. "You can't just posit a definition of Christianity that contradicts what virtually every Christian in 2000 years has said what Christianity is. If there is one thing that all the many varieties of Christianity believe is central to their religion is God becoming mam as Jesus. Their all theology is based on that. What you suggest may be a better religion, but it's not Christianity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
I think a Christian who believes in a magical universe in which a god exists is far closer to the whole message of the Bible than one who doubts this but believes some guy was born of a carpenter, preached moral lessons, and was crucified by the Romans. There are so many atheists in Christian clothing.
. "That is true, and in my opinion they are not Christians therefore, that name comes with a specific definition, they need to choose another! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word. "Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word.
Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake."Or we could say son of God or not son of God. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
I think a Christian who believes in a magical universe in which a god exists is far closer to the whole message of the Bible than one who doubts this but believes some guy was born of a carpenter, preached moral lessons, and was crucified by the Romans. There are so many atheists in Christian clothing.
If we assume the word "Christ" is just another name for god like "Jehovah", a Christian can worship Christ and find meaning in the allegories of the Bible. The demand of historicity is entirely erroneous imo. If the Bible lives and dies on whether what it recounts actually happened then it's a pretty thoroughly worthless tome that will soon be junked. It isn't. It won't.
You can't just posit a definition of Christianity that contradicts what virtually every Christian in 2000 years has said what Christianity is. If there is one thing that all the many varieties of Christianity believe is central to their religion is God becoming mam as Jesus. Their all theology is based on that.
What you suggest may be a better religion, but it's not Christianity. "Haha, I agree, someone make a note of the time and date! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word.
Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake.
Or we could say son of God or not son of God. "That avoids the fact that he claimed to be one, and the entire raison d'etre of the Christian religion is based on that claim and it's implications. I am only discussing it from that point of view, not of muslim belief or Jehovah's Witness or anything else that does not require the divinity of Christ, there is no argument in that case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word.
Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake.
Or we could say son of God or not son of God.
That avoids the fact that he claimed to be one, and the entire raison d'etre of the Christian religion is based on that claim and it's implications.
I am only discussing it from that point of view, not of muslim belief or Jehovah's Witness or anything else that does not require the divinity of Christ, there is no argument in that case."Lewis tried to argue that if Jesus wasn't the son of God he must be either a liar or mad. That's logically incorrect. Many sane people make claims about themselves which they sincerely believe but which are objectively untrue. I might believe I am the best looking person on fab. That's very unlikely to be true, but if I believe that it doesn't mean I am mad or a liar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word.
Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake.
Or we could say son of God or not son of God.
That avoids the fact that he claimed to be one, and the entire raison d'etre of the Christian religion is based on that claim and it's implications.
I am only discussing it from that point of view, not of muslim belief or Jehovah's Witness or anything else that does not require the divinity of Christ, there is no argument in that case.
Lewis tried to argue that if Jesus wasn't the son of God he must be either a liar or mad. That's logically incorrect. Many sane people make claims about themselves which they sincerely believe but which are objectively untrue.
I might believe I am the best looking person on fab. That's very unlikely to be true, but if I believe that it doesn't mean I am mad or a liar. "I dunno - that's a pretty serious delusion in my book, I would suspect you had NPD at the least, and I would not be basing a religion on your looks any time soon. That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just as an afterword, after a bit of rummaging around, it seems there has been an interesting argument between Ehrman and Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient history. It seems Carrier has breathed academic life into the mythicist argument with his 2014 book "On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason to doubt". Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist?" was written in 2013. I shall order both and enjoy the argument between them
At the end of the day, unless you're a Christian it's not really that important whether or not Jesus's existed. Obviously those of us who aren't Christians dismiss the mythical aspects of the story just as we dismiss the myths about Mohammed and Buddha.
Whether or not we are then left with some shadowy figure upon which the edifice of Christianity was built is somewhat less significant than the edifice itself.
I don't see the non existence of Jesus, if that is the case, as a bad thing for Christianity at all. In fact, thinking of god as solely an invisible infinite being and not a man born of a virgin solves a vast array of significant problems that are unique to Christianity as a Faith, sets it at odds with science, and brings it back much more in line with the world's other faiths. I think such a move would radically improve the religiosity of the faith, fend off the ridiculous literalists, and bring the focus back on the meaning of the story rather than the ridiculous details. As such, I think you could be a mythicist and quite a contented Christian. Indeed, mythicists would argue that that's precisely what early Christians were
Given that what makes a Christian a Christian as opposed to any religion is the belief that God became man and lived on earth as the actually existing and literal man Jesus, then a belief in the non existence of Jesus means that you cannot be a Christian.
Exactly so, a Christian is a follower of Christ after all. And as one apologist I knew put it - you cannot even merely believe Jesus was 'a good man' and a moral teacher. He claimed to be God incarnate - he either was who he said he was, or he was a charlatan and a liar, he can be nothing in between.
That's the CS Lewis trilemma. It's bollocks. It's quite common for people to sincerely claim they have divine powers when they haven't.
That's irrelevant - you either do or don't, it doesn't matter how sincere you are, if the claim is false you are a charlatan even if you are primarily a deluded rather than a deliberately deceptive one.
"charlatan" generally implies deliberate lies. "deluded" is indeed a better word.
Use the word fake if you prefer. The choice is still son of God, or fake.
Or we could say son of God or not son of God.
That avoids the fact that he claimed to be one, and the entire raison d'etre of the Christian religion is based on that claim and it's implications.
I am only discussing it from that point of view, not of muslim belief or Jehovah's Witness or anything else that does not require the divinity of Christ, there is no argument in that case.
Lewis tried to argue that if Jesus wasn't the son of God he must be either a liar or mad. That's logically incorrect. Many sane people make claims about themselves which they sincerely believe but which are objectively untrue.
I might believe I am the best looking person on fab. That's very unlikely to be true, but if I believe that it doesn't mean I am mad or a liar.
I dunno - that's a pretty serious delusion in my book, I would suspect you had NPD at the least, and I would not be basing a religion on your looks any time soon.
That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work."We're getting into what constitutes sanity and what doesn't, but it's perfectly possible for people to hold nonsensical or delusional beliefs in certain areas whilst functioning normally in society. David Icke for example has some very strange beliefs, but also is a very successful businessman and as far as I am aware has never been diagnosed with any mental illness. Lewis was trying to convince people like me Jesus was the son of God, and to that extent it's a shit argument. I agree that if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually, thinking about it a sincere belief that you are God is probably enough to get you sectioned isn't it?? "No. You can only be sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree that if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. " That's one thing I am saying, yes. But also that Christianity is based on the divinity of Christ, and without that, the whole premise would not work anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work." If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists."You appear to know very little time of Christian theology. The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian. "But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts. "It’s been an interesting discussion. There aren’t enough posts left to open up atonement theory or the man Jesus vs the cosmic Christ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts. "To be honest, I find people who say they are "spiritual" and claim that their home grown beliefs are superior to established religions even more annoying than actual Christians... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts.
To be honest, I find people who say they are "spiritual" and claim that their home grown beliefs are superior to established religions even more annoying than actual Christians... "For me, it's all about how one presents and defends ones views. SoulfulKinky and Vine did a good job. The people that annoy me are the idiots who think that putting up a blatant strawman of religion, makes them sound intelligent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts.
It’s been an interesting discussion.
There aren’t enough posts left to open up atonement theory or the man Jesus vs the cosmic Christ. "Do a thread 2. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts.
To be honest, I find people who say they are "spiritual" and claim that their home grown beliefs are superior to established religions even more annoying than actual Christians...
For me, it's all about how one presents and defends ones views. SoulfulKinky and Vine did a good job. The people that annoy me are the idiots who think that putting up a blatant strawman of religion, makes them sound intelligent. "Thanks. You too. Btw is it Chris or Ada or both writing these? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my only point - the religion is based on the divinity of Christ, if the claim was false the whole premise is null and void, it does not work. If Christ is a divine angelic being who appea_ed to people in visions Christianity survives; the worship of Christ is the worship of god. If Jesus was merely some dude who orated on moral philosophy then Christianity dies... it is a terrible religious error; the worship of a mere man as god is akin to idolatry.
Thats why mythicism is less of a threat to Christianity than the "no miracles" view of Passover Plot theorists.
You appear to know very little time of Christian theology.
The central point of Christianity is God taking on human form to take upon himself the burden of sin and thus lead to the forgiveness of sins for humanity. If you say that this never happened you are, by definition, not a Christian.
But he is interesting and articulate. Can't tell if he's a genius or bat shit crazy but that's a compliment of sorts.
To be honest, I find people who say they are "spiritual" and claim that their home grown beliefs are superior to established religions even more annoying than actual Christians...
For me, it's all about how one presents and defends ones views. SoulfulKinky and Vine did a good job. The people that annoy me are the idiots who think that putting up a blatant strawman of religion, makes them sound intelligent.
Thanks. You too. Btw is it Chris or Ada or both writing these? "Chris although Ada likes to see comments by SoulfulKinky when he starts talking about how he dreamt about his soul mate. His username is one of the most appropriate really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
