KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

▼

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

Thank God He Was

from JoeUser Forums
What if Jesus Christ was never born? What would it be like here and in the rest of the world? Would it make a difference at all? It is a thought provoking question isn't it? What if Jesus had never been born?

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in politics. Our representative form of democracy rests on explicitly Christian principles of church and state. So do our principles of free speech and religious tolerance. In fact, the very founding of this nation was motivated by the goal to establish a Christ-centered community. If Jesus was never born, there wouldn’t be a United States of America, at least as we know it today.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in education. The world’s oldest universities were all founded on Christian principles, so that students could grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same is true of nearly every one of the first one hundred colleges and universities in America. Eventually people would have developed institutions of higher education, but there would be no Oxford, no Harvard, no Yale, and no Princeton. Furthermore, Christians have always been pioneers in promoting literacy and universal education. Even America’s public school system is part of the legacy of Puritan education. To this day, linguists are working all over the world, in the name of Jesus, to put native languages in written form and teach people to read the Bible.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in literature, music, and the arts. There would be no Messiah for Handel to write into his famous oratorio—no Christmas music at all. There would be no Pieta by Michelangelo, and no Last Supper by Leonardo. There would be no cathedrals in Europe, no Hagia Sophia or Notre Dame. There would be no Gospels and no New Testament, and therefore no story of the prodigal son, no parable of the good Samaritan, and no Sermon on the Mount. There would be no Divine Comedy by Dante, and no Paradise Lost by Milton.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in science and medicine. It was the Christian worldview—with its insistence on the rational order of the universe and man’s dominion over creation—that gave rise to modern science. Followers of Jesus Christ were also pioneers in the art of medicine. The first hospitals were established by Christians who believed they had a God-given responsibility to heal the sick.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in charity and the protection of life. It was the followers of Christ who first introduced the Roman world to disinterested benevolence, to helping someone who couldn’t help you in return. Pagans were amazed to see that Christians not only took care of their own needy people, but also provided for other people’s poor. It was also the followers of Christ who first abandoned the nearly universal practice of infanticide. The birth of Christ taught them to protect the lives of their own children, and to rescue foundlings and orphans.

Humanly speaking, none of this would have happened if Jesus was never born. What I have said so far is only just the beginning, of course, and it is also true that many wrong things have been done in the name of Christ—that is a topic for another occasion. But simply in terms of secular history, the life of Jesus Christ has had a far greater and more positive influence on the world than anyone else in history.

But to bring what I have said closer to home, if Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make to your own destiny. You would have no atonement for your sin, no resurrection from the dead, no hope of eternal life, and no Savior to call a friend.

What if Jesus was never born? But Jesus was born. As the angel said to the Christmas shepherds: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:12). And the rest, as they say, is history.


Link
religion
31,165 views 203 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
SoDaiho posts:
I believe Christians have a great religion, and they are welcome to it. I believe their path will lead them to God as mine leads me to God. As I wrote in my blog, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
End of quote


KFC POSTS:
I think you're right. All paths will lead to God. I just don't agree we believe it will be for the same reason. I also believe some are following the God of this world and haven't a clue.
End of quote


This part I highlighted KFC reminds me of Christ saying, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he suffers the loss of his soul?" Here he was certainly implying that not all paths of this world lead to God.

I just posted this comment on your blog SoDaiho.

Other than that all paths lead to God is a rather extreme statement. Some paths definitely do not lead to God...Christ Himself distinguished between the two roads declaring the way leading to everlasting life to be narrow and restricted, while the way leading to everlasting destruction to be broad and pleasant to those who are bent on doing life their own way according to their own self-satisfaction. St.Paul told the Corinthians that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of Heaven. In this sense we cannot say that all paths lead to God.

Each path can't lead to God becasue it's for God to say which path we will come to Him and not for man to tell God to be content with whatever men choose to do.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
SODAIHO POSTS:
If you can make a logical proof of the existance of a first cause, I should like to see it. (Please note, I am not asking for a proof of God. That is impossible.) You keep talking about it, now please show me the empirical evidence.
End of quote


I did perhaps you missed, like OCk said, on these long threads, it's easy to do. See reply # 76. and here is a part:

Ever hear of the law of causality?


It tells us that every effect must be due to a power or agent that caused it. Nothing in the world came into existence of itself...including the phenomena of the moral law dictated to us by inner voice of our conscience, of which, even you as a scientist cannot deny every person has.

Motion came from a mover; design from a designer, life from life and the moral law dictated to us by our voice of conscience from a Lawmaker or Lawgiver. The proof of causality is simple and irrefutable. A watch takes a watch maker, the Cosmos manifests design that supposes a Designer of infinite intelligence and power, whom we call Almighty God. The universality of belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is a forceful reminder of the fact that our human nature recognizes and is dependent upon the existence of God.

The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. It's the other way around...they have to persuade themselves there is no God. And no one yet who has attained such a temporary persuasion has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of God, they endeavor to grow out of it.

Another proof is the existence of law as it manifests through inanimate as well as animate nature. It evidences the existence of a LawMaker or LawGiver. The Natural(moral)law in particular is a constant reminder of the LawMaker enjoining us to do and not to do certain things.

Just as the proof of causality is irrefutable, that God exists is an established fact which is beyond a question of reasonable doubt.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
SoDaiho posts:
However, when it comes to the belief that some Christians hold that theirs is the only path, and that their God, Jesus, is the sole gate-keeper to the Universal, Well, I see that as incredibly closed minded, if not obnoxious. It reveals a primitive, almost child-like, view of God and theology. But then, that's how fundamentalists stike me, spiritually handicapped, and unwilling to open their mind's eye.
End of quote


Christians believe that Christ is the only path to everlasting life. We believe on the authority of Scripture and (for me, a Catholic, of Christ's teaching Church). With those two sources of authority, (both from God) how can that possibly be closed-minded?

Christ said, "Everyone therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in Heaven, but he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in Heaven."

Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, then you haven't got the truth.

On this specific point, either we Christians have the truth or you do in denying that belief in Christ as the only path to everlasting life is obnoxious, primitive, child-like, spritually handicapped, and closed minded. On what grounds are you basing your assertion?





Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?
End of quote


Yes, why do I think this is a loaded question....lol?

It's called the Davidic covenant. Why do you ask? If you look in the NT in Luke and Matthew you'd see these two geneologies both go back to David.

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
On this specific point, either we Christians have the truth or you do in denying that belief in Christ as the only path to everlasting life is obnoxious, primitive, child-like, spritually handicapped, and closed minded. On what grounds are you basing your assertion?
End of quote


Lula, you and KFC both keep confusing truth with belief. Spirituality must be open, its a living process. A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it, is prone to entropy. This is why, I suspect, so many splinter churches appear in fundamentalist church circles. I see some forms of Christianity as primitive because I see it as idolatry; its obnoxious because it limits our understanding of the majesty of God.



Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ock posts #73
If there is a lack of evidence, I am inclined to not believe that the fact is a fact, but I do not mark it as "never going to be proven."
End of quote


Is it not a fact in your mind that there is no God? It seem by this statement that you must have evidence for your unbelief. If so, what is it?

OCK posts:
For the scientific, evidence must be testable and repeatable. I can test that 2 + 2 = 4. Lula, if your argument is that we cannot believe anything we sense with our senses, and that even my belief that I am sitting here typing this is just a matter of faith that I'm sitting here typing it, then ok. That means NOTHING is provable. Not that God exists.
End of quote


I can't see how by this example that you come to your conclusion that nothing is provable.

Now. Lula, you mentioned it requires faith to believe 2 + 2 = 4. I would submit that you believe in belief, not God. If you believed in God, would you look both ways before crossing the street? Would you cry instead of party at a funeral? Would you refuse if I asked you to take a needle and shoot air into your veins? Would you place your hand on a burning stove and leave it there - ignoring the pain because of your faith?
End of quote


By faith we believe things. Now people do not believe with their feelings and emotions, rather they believe with their minds. Belief is a mental conviction. I look both ways before crossing the street becasue I'm prudent and have common sense...I believe in God most assuredly...for how many times have there been while driving that something bad happened and by the grace of God, we weren't killed? We say of these circumstances, "it wasn't our time". How about last week in the news, that window washer who fell some 40 stories and lived? It wasn't his time...if he didn't believe in God, I bet he does now! See how that might work?

Faith is an intellectual admission that a certain thing is true becasue we have not seen the reality ourselves, we reasonably admit that the one who has told us must be realiably informed (thus the teacher with the school children), and not intending to deceive us. Nor is faith involuntary. If I see an accident, I know that it occurred, and it is useless to tell myself that it didn't. But if I didn't see it, and was told it happened, then I can choose to believe or not. I can put my faith in what is told to me or refuse.

True Christian faith cannot lead one into error. We prove that God has said a thing and believe becasue He has said it. Doubt would be possible only could God be deceived, or deceive mankind. But He could not. God knows all things and is Truth itself. Also He has given abundant external signs to confirm His Revelation. We are right becasue He is right.

Faith is a virtue and a gift of God. Faith teaches some things which are above reason for the revealed truths known only to God must be above human thought. But while faith teaches some truths so profound as to be above natural reason, it never teaches any doctrine which is opposed to sound and rational principles.





Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ock posts:
Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?


KFC POSTS: Yes, why do I think this is a loaded question....lol?
End of quote




I think it may have something to do with my saying:

Christ came into the world through a miracle; the Virgin Birth;
End of quote


Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it may have something to do with my saying:


Christ came into the world through a miracle; the Virgin Birth;
End of quote


ahhhhhhh then Ock should know the rest of the story. If he checks into those two geneologies he'd find something verrrrrrry interesting!!

And I'm not talking about the fact that David's great grandmother was a prostitute!

Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it,
End of quote


Sodaiho, it's not so much that I have it or Lula has it as it has us.

Think invasion of the body snatchers and you'd get some sort of funky way I'm speaking of.....but in a good way.... :p 
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ock posts:
Now onto proving unbelief. I cannot prove that any god does not exist. Nor did I ever claim that. Nor will I try to. As an example, I gave the Celestial Teapot. And if it wasn't clear what point that was making, I'll restate it too - in a different way.

Up in my bedroom right now is a leprechaun named Fred who rides a German Shephard. They are both invisible and inaudible and speak to me in my heart. Prove to me they don't exist. Do you not find that an inane thing for me to ask?

Well first off, you'd think it nonsense. But if I wrote a very clever book discussing all the great things that Fred and the Shephard have done to insure that I live forever (along with lots of threats that if I follow his evil counterpart, Doug the leprechaun who rides a Dachshund, I'll suffer forever) and buried it in my backyard, then who is to say that 2000 years from now there wouldn't be a group of people arguing as to whether or not Fred and the Shephard should be a part of high school biology classes?

It should be pretty obvious to all, regardless of what you believe, that this conversation can never come to a point of anything but "agree to disagree." The two "camps" live in different worlds and use different math for coming to conclusions. Each side thinks their way is the right way. Each has different definitions of "evidence" (or claim to - I don't really believe that last part and will describe it in a moment.) But suffice it to say, as long as religionists continue to claim that their evidence is as sound as scientific evidence, there's nothing to discuss. No harm, no foul...we just aren't going to agree because the religionists have removed any basis for discussing it by taking a short cut to knowledge and giving it a name. Faith.
End of quote


I tell you what...as of Christ and Christianity...
You get hundreds of people who take what you say here on faith as true and die as martyrs for this in their name, and then have millions upon millions of other who believe it as well and then, I'll give it some consideration that they exist too.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it,


Sodaiho, it's not so much that I have it or Lula has it as it has us.
Think invasion of the body snatchers and you'd get some sort of funky way I'm speaking of.....but in a good way....
End of quote


Hey, this is good. I can relate...the amazing thing is that we are perfectly free to leave at any time...but beg in prayer to be wrapped in the freedom of His love! What peace...there is only peace in Christ.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW posts:
BTW, Fred and Doug are real, and I shall very soon elevate them to the Godforms they deserve to be recognized as. Amen.
End of quote


Look OCK, you have one follower already!
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ock posts:
But suffice it to say, as long as religionists continue to claim that their evidence is as sound as scientific evidence, there's nothing to discuss. No harm, no foul...we just aren't going to agree because the religionists have removed any basis for discussing it by taking a short cut to knowledge and giving it a name. Faith.
End of quote


There is no conflict between science and theology. truth is truth whether it manifests in theology which deals with the laws of God or expermimental science which deals with the laws of nature.

Placing theology in conflict with science is well, unscientific for it places science in conflict with science. Theology is a science, the science of religion, which treats of God, His nature, laws, attributes, etc.

What I've noticed is the conflicts when they do arise comes from pseudo-science whether it is in the sphere of theories, like Evolution or of false religion or ir-religion.

There is a harmonious relationship between theology and science. One tells of the source of mysteries, the other discovers and of the moral obligations they entail. Science is truth whether learned in a lab or a seminary.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is a basic flaw in this kind of reasoning": contrafactuals cannot never be taken as an argument for anything, because History is a study of what happened. If, for example, an event did not take place, then we are not justified in retrospectively erasing the historical record. I do know that science fiction writers have a field day with the "ifs" of history, but it is not a worthwhile exercise.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
Science is almost ALL theories. Many are accepted as fact, but they remain theories because evidence may come along some day through increased knowledge or better instruments used for testing, that disproves a part or all of a "theory." It's called not being arrogant. Your suggestion that God exists and is a Lawgiver is as much a theory as evolution is, and with less evidence.

The difference between fundamentalists and science can be described like this.

If suddenly, irrevocable proof came out that evolution was definitely a fact, fundamentalists would say "well, that's nice, but I still don't believe it." But if sudden irrevocable proof came out that God was real and evolution was false, scientists would acknowledge the evidence, throw out the old broken theories, and study something else. Without batting an eye.

The sad thing about the fundamentalist approach to evolution is that most believe evolution puts forth as truth some things that it doesn't. Like one species turning into another species, for example. Missing links and other such nonsense as reflected in statements like "If you sent a tornado through a junk yard, you'd NEVER wind up with a fully functional 747 after it was over." Fundamentalists seem to think that is what evolution claims. It isn't. And I'd say you can study that for yourself, but it's pretty clear you have already decided (incorrectly) what it is, and have no interest (which is good, because your understanding of it is wrong, and believing in wrong things is....wait for it....bad. )

You seem to want to pin on me a complete belief in no God at all. You can't pin that on me because it doesn't exist. What I do believe is that it is highly improbable.

I wonder, if in the far future when more is known about everything, who will come by and determine which of us was the caster of pearls.
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
If suddenly, irrevocable proof came out that evolution was definitely a fact, fundamentalists would say "well, that's nice, but I still don't believe it."


and that's a misrepresentation of the truth Ock. The Christians do NOT have a problem with provable well tested out scientific FACTS. What is at issue is the theories TAUGHT as fact. Evolution is NOT a FACT. It is a THEORY. So no we do not believe in the theory of Evolution. To a Christian that is just one more avenue (lie) to get God out of the picture, and we're not falling for it.

You seem to want to pin on me a complete belief in no God at all. You can't pin that on me because it doesn't exist. What I do believe is that it is highly improbable


semantics again. Either you believe or you don't. Highly improbable is saying the same as HE doesn't exist. Why not just say it? Do you think you're safer with one foot on either side of the fence?


Wow. Do you people have anything else to do in your day?


ROFL. Nope, this pretty much sums up our day. We just all sit around the computer and figure out the world. Someday you'll thank us when we have it all ironed out.

To me the Bible is a book of collected writings. That is it. Not divinely inspired. Not the literal word of God.


notice the operative words here..."to me." And I would answer you I agree with you. But "to me" after testing out this word for more than 35 years I have found them to be exactly what they claim to be. I would ask you....how much have you read this word that claims to be the very word of God? Have you even read one book out of the 66 included in the bible? I say this because most that come at me like this have never even picked up the bible at all.

As a grad student and especially coming out of a science background I shouldn't have to tell you about doing"research" before you come up with your final answer now do I? Have you tested this out like you may test a scientific experiment or are you basing your belief on what others have told you to be true?

Anyway, why it is so important that I or any other person that does not believe your beliefs should align ourselves with your thought process or belief system?


It's not about us first of all. Second of all from our POV we are told to "go and tell" of the hope that is to come for all mankind that will listen. We have experienced that hope and understand what Christ meant when he said we could have an "abundant life" right now even. We, as Christians, want to share what we have with those around us. That's it in a nutshell. It's out of obedience and love we do what we do. Our obedience to God and our love for him as well as to those around us whether we know them or not.

One of the beautiful things about Buddhism, for me, is that each person must find their way to enlightenment. You have chosen your path. I have chosen my path.


So you'r another believe in Buddha? Hmmmmm......... One thing I am noticing is those here that believe as you do, in Buddhism, seem to be having the most difficulty with this subject. Why is that? I also feel for the most part, the most hostility coming from those that beileve in this path. Why is that? Aren't you guys supposed to be mellow and reflective?






Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is that? Aren't you guys supposed to be mellow and reflective?
End of quote


No real hostility, KFC, (at least from me) just a certain amount of annoyance at Christian arrogance and unwillingness to see the validity of other points of view.

There is no "supposed to be" of Buddhism. There is just being present. If one is angry then one is angry and lets it go; if one is happy then one is happy and lets it go. Serenity comes from being centered and not being a slave to emotions. This does not mean that we don't have emotions.

There is a nice little article in this month's issue of Shambala Sun by my friend Brad Warner, author of "Hardcore Zen" and "Sit Down and Shut Up!" Its about your very question. You might pick it up at the bookstore. Essentially he says people get their ideas about Buddhists from media images and these are seriously distorted. True Zen is tough stuff, not for everyone. Moreover its about manifesting yourself as you are every moment with the highest degree of authenticity. Hard to make an image of that.

Be well.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't believe. But I am not saying I'm right. And no, I don't say what I say to make myself feel more comfortable. If there is a god and he's so insecure as to be offended by the fact that I think, I'll happily join my brothers and sisters in hell. For me there is a difference between not believing something and believing that it is not. Read that last little bit again. Neither you nor Lula seem to understand it.

Regarding what you said to Asaxygirl, you should probably do a little research of your own. You might find that:

A) She's your elder and,
B) She was raised Buddhist and Shinto in Japan and later became a member of the Catholic church before returning to Buddhism.

And I agree with Sadaiho. No hostility. Frustration and a certain amount of annoyance. The annoyance isn't due to differing beliefs. It's due to the fact that there is no way to discuss it because of the different criteria for what is evidence.

The thing about theories...you're really not very good at fundamentalism, KFC. Most dogged dogmatics have given that one up as the kind of argument a child makes on the playground. Everyone with two neurons to rub together knows that it is very rare that a scientific theory becomes a fact. Scientists aren't arrogant enough to take a bunch of hearsay and call it law, and every day they go to work, they spend a lot of time trying to prove themselves wrong.

Gravity is not even a fact. Do you believe in gravity? It's just a theory, after all.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
So if we could get millions to believe in Ock's leprechauns and thousands to martyr themselves to 'prove' their existance, the leprechauns would be real, and Lula would consider dedicating her life to their service.


Those leprechauns are real, and I challenge anyone to prove their unbelief in them. I'm sure a lot of people will bring up the bible as proof that Fred isn't real, but that's just the work of Doug. Sad that so many fall for his tricks.
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
OCK POSTS: #73
Now. Lula, you mentioned it requires faith to believe 2 + 2 = 4. I would submit that you believe in belief, not God.
End of quote


If you need a picture of true faith and not "believing in belief" then pull up a picture of the two planes flying into the twin towers. THAT, my friends, is faith.
End of quote


And I will give you this one...of having faith and belief.

A little girl asked her father if she could go down to him in the dark cellar. He said that she might. But when about to descend, she found the ladder had been taken away. "I can't get down, there is no ladder" she called. "Jump down, I will catch you", said the father.
"But I can't see you, I can't see anything", she said. "Jump and I will catch you, my arms are wide open". The little girl had faith in her father and unheistatingly jumped into the darkness and was safely caught in her father's arms. Now if the girl only believed in her father, and let it go at that, without jumping, she would have not enjoyed the pleasure of being with her father. So it is with God.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
A) She's your elder and
End of quote


KFC, to add to what Ock left out...I started studying the bible at 17 and am now 41
End of quote


Well then you're not my elder. Not that that makes a huge difference to me but sometimes it does.

Do not assume you know anything about me. You know very little.
End of quote


I never said I did. I just asked a fair question. Usually when I have these discussions with others, they do admit they've read very little of the scripture. Sometimes when they have read it at all it's with a skeptical attitude. That's why I asked. No assumptions made from me on this one. I would say no more than you for asking the following questions of me....

Do you have misgivings about the path you have chosen? Does your faith not truly contain all the answers you seek? I
End of quote


And I'll answer. Absolutely not. My faith does indeed answer all the questions of life, such as where did I come from, what is my purpose in life and where am I headed. In my opinion, these are the most important questions of life for us on planet earth.

I am highly spirited, intelligent and strong as well. All the makings of a bad wife, according to Japanese belief. Maybe my husband would be a better judge.
End of quote


hahahah well you just described me as well. We DO have common ground here.

And you'll thank me for the contributions from my research that lead to diagnostics and treatments for a number if infectious diseases and cancers.
End of quote


You sound like you're on a similar path as my son. His degree is in Molecular Biology and he's working on his Ph.D in Neuro Science. His field right now is working on a cure for epilepsy spending eons of hours working in the labs. His best friends are mice....dead one...ewwwwww! It would be a hoot to see you two meet up someday. Who knows maybe you already know him and don't realize it?

Those leprechauns are real, and I challenge anyone to prove their unbelief in them.
End of quote


and do you have witnesses to back you up on this Ock?















Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
SODAIHO Posts: #63
There is no factual evidence outside of the statements in the Christian scripture of Jesus miricles, his teaching, or much of anything else related to Christianity.


lULA POSTS: When you question the authenticity of the miracles attributed to Christ, you question the New testament, the patristic writings of the early Christian centuries, which are surely as authentic as are the histories of ancient Greece and Rome.

I remember reading one of your posts in which you said you greatly admired Christ's Sermon on the Mount. To do so, you take admit that Christ is Divine and competant to perform miracles ....
End of quote



sOdAIHO POSTS:
I do admire that sermon, as I admire many sutras of the Buddha and writings of the rabbis. I do not admit Jesus was any more or less divine than any man or woman.
End of quote


In His sermon, CHrist establishes a complete expression of Christian doctrine by which His followers are guided. We learn that the important and chief work of life in the service of God, that fancies that the world holds as most worthwhile are of no consequence, and even harmful to those who place the God first plan in their life.

There are 2 accounts--St.Luke and St. Matthew. From them we learn that Christ's teachings are a sharp departure from the Mosaic tradition, in fact advanced far beyond them in human relations.

Moses had appealed to people hard of heart by promising material blessings as a reward of right living. So it was that the Jews had always considered wealth representative of God's blessings, sickness and misfortune as proof of His wrath..so too their harshness towards the sick and unfortunate, their misunderstanding of Messianic prophecies. But our Lord dispelled these with the Beatitudes. He talked to the poor, to the less fortunate who knew the burden of oppression. How great was their rejoicing when Christ proclaimed the foundationstones of His kingdom...Blessed are this...Blessed are that...Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but to elevate it to Christian perfection...something Anne Coulter knew well as we have already discussed.

Yes, Christ wasn't about a political or military revolution, He proclaimed a spiritual revolution.

Moses had said thou shalt not commit adultery, divorce is to be tolerated..but Christ said evil thoughts and impure glances are sinful, marriage is to be restored to its primitive sanctity, one man and one woman for life. The Old Law had said they were to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the New Law demands that Christians suffer violence for their conviction. The Talmud which you have said that you frequently read, teaches the pagan is not our neighbor, have no pity on the Gentiles. The Christian must love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who maltreat and slander us.

Oh, yes, the Savior changed the whole view of life...He raised our minds and hearts to heavenly things. He assured us of God's love no matter how difficult the path. Oh yes, a new teaching, a new program, apart from the materialistic background, the synagague to His Church, a visible human organism, yet spiritual in nature.

There is no doubt as to His teaching...it has come down to us through the ages...what is old, is new every time it is taught.
Do you know what happened when He came down from the mountain where the Sermon was given to Capharnaum? One of the elders of the synagague came to seek His help on behalf of a Roman centurian whose servant was close to death. Slaves were regarded as cattle then. Christ acceded to their request and before He got to the centurian's house, and knowing that a Jew would be rendered unclean to enter into a Gentile's house, he sent friends to tell Christ that he was not worthy that CHrist should enter under his roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. Our Lord praised his faith in the presence of all and said that at that hour the servant was healed. I believe that CHrist performed the miracle of healing the servant.








Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ock posts:
Gravity is not even a fact. Do you believe in gravity? It's just a theory, after all.
End of quote



We discussed gravity about 40 posts ago! Gravity is still pretty much a big mystery...I think Cedarbird was on to something though when she said that we know it exists becasue if not for it we'd be floating.

I wrote:
Gravity is one of a thousands things taken on faith.
End of quote




For me there is a difference between not believing something and believing that it is not. Read that last little bit again. Neither you nor Lula seem to understand it.
End of quote


Yes, I understand the difference between not believing something and believing that it is not...that's relatively easy to understand.

It's just that your #73 reply, that "truth is relative", "survival of the fittest", etc., examples aren't really a persuasive rebuttal to what I've given as demonstratable physical evidence of the existence of God, that we can know by human reason, namely the law of causality and the argument of the inner voice of conscience.

After that I offered the argument of universal belief which is given the fact that all people of all times haved believed in a Supreme Being who is God, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a justification for that belief. Kinda half-heartedly, I used your own story about the elf to try to make this point.



Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
SODAIHO Posts: #63
There is no factual evidence outside of the statements in the Christian scripture of Jesus miricles, his teaching, or much of anything else related to Christianity.
End of quote


Should we, in fact expect the secular history records of Jesus' day to have preserved any mention of the life of Jesus and if so what kind of references should we expect?

Actually there is some evidence outside of the biblical writings but admittedly not alot especially from the time period of his death. From the decade of the thirties practically nothing survived. Although surviving from this time period is an inscription of Caesarea bearing two thirds of Pilate's name. All that is left of the forties are fables written by Phaedrus. I could go on with the fifties and sixties AD. Most of that stuff comes from Spanish emigrants in Rome.

Take the record of Pontius Pilate for example. In my research I did find that no offical record has been preserved of any report which Pilate or any other Roman governor of Judea sent to Rome about anything. And only rarely has an offical report from any governor of any Roman province survived. But we can read from Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD his informing emperor Pius of the fulfillment of Psalm 22:16.

"But the words, "They pierced my hands and feet," refer to the nails which were fixed in Jesus hands and feet on the cross and after He was crucified. His executioners cast lots for His garments and divided them among themselves. That these things happened you may learn from the Acts which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." First Apology

He said also:

"That He performed these miracles you may easily satisfy yourself from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate." First Apology

A generation or so later we have the writings of Tertullian, who wrote that the census which was held about the time of Jesus' birth was recorded in the offical archives of the reign of Augustus and that anyone who took the trouble to look these archives up would find the registration of Joseph & Mary therein.

I would say this is a bold statement, if in fact, no record existed.

One prolific writer and contemporary of Jesus was Philo. He was born around 15 BC and lived in Egypt dying around 40 AD. He came from a wealthy family. His works were primarily of philosophy and commentary on Jewish scripture and religion He wrote, "It is not unduly surprising that such a person should not pay much attention to an agitator sprung from the humblest of the people whose doctrine if he had one had no connection with philosophy."

We know Paul died aroung 67 AD and after that there are much ancient writings outside of scripture in regards to the Christian faith. Some of these ancient secular writers you can check out include:


Cornelius Tacitus born 52-54 AD
Lucian of Samosata (second century) He spoke scornfully of Christ but even this gives us proof that Christ indeed exist.
Flavious Josephus born 37 AD -Jewish Historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger (Govenor of Asia Minor 112 AD)
Tertullian
Thallus - (one of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ in 52 AD known from fragments cited by other writers)
Phlegon- Fist Century Historian

Rabbis

There are all kinds of comments about Christ from various kinds of rabbinic literature. The Jewish authorities did not deny that Jesus performed miracles but they attributed them to sorcery.

Many Jewish scholars in our present time have been in the forefront affirming the historicity of Christ. Geza Vermes, David Flusser, S. Safrai and Pinchas Lapide have lead the way claiming Jesus as a first century Jew. I could go on and on as to what they found out by studying Jesus and his Jewish background and how it compares to the Hebrew Scriptures finding no discrepeancies in his very Jewish nuances in His words and deeds. Many parallels between his teaching and rabbinic teaching have been found. When you compae these teachings you can see how far fetched the idea that the life of Christ was made up by zealous Christians of the second and third centuries.

Don't get me started......I'll spare you the rest.