Could Jesus have been an alien?

[d993s]

Did you ride the short bus?

BTW...i really didn't want to do this but i am blocking you now. You just having nothing constructive to add to this conversation and frankly I am considering you a waste of screen and laptop battery power.

good luck on life.

You're hilarious.
Since I don't agree with and don't construct on your bullshit and unprovable faith-based beliefs.......
There is no need for debate here, although your arguments hold nothing but hot air, all based on your belief and faith.
In short, you have no argument.
The only thing evident from all your posts is your ignorance.

[d993s]

This one's for you sport122

[sport_122]

Nope.

But men DEFINITELY die for something that they THINK is real. Do I have to mention the MANY events (Waco, Jones?) where this is so? I know that you don't need the examples.

Thanks for writing this Baby J. This is exactly my point. The men that lived with Christ and followed him and the people that followed them during his life and after his resurrection were hunted down and many were killed for NOT renouncing their faith in him. They heard his claims and they heard him say what he would do. It was after he did it that they were ready to die. Because when Christ died these followers where nowhere to be found.

so the idea of a hoaxed resurrection is crazy to me. they were willing to die because they fully believed that Christ had risen because they saw him and spent time with him after he rose. their faith was more substantiated than anyone elses in that they witnessed it all.

Even in Peter, as he denied Christ while Christ was being beaten and hung up and at the point of the resurrection Peter did not doubt again, to the very point of being crucified himself. The rest of the disciples scattered when Christ was captured out of fear, until the moment of his resurrection, then they were made bold in their faith to the point of where they would reunite and put their lives on the line.

I say this to say that these men were NOT crazy, they experienced something that told them that ALL that they had seen and ALL that they had heard was validated, NOT in Christs life or death. Even though he performed many miracles, that was not what did it, (because even Judas saw the miracles) It was the resurrection. It was that nobody needed to come and resurrect Christ. He rose on his own just as he said he would. At the moment of experiencing Christ again, ALL of their doubts were removed and their faith was made complete.

The same as with Paul. He knew of the miracles he heard of Christ, but it was only after he experienced the living Christ on the road to Damascus that he immediately became just like the rest. and I mind you that before he was like them, he was trying to kill them.

They most certainly believed (thought) with good reason that Christ was the Messiah, and that He did indeed raise up from the grave. And this was not 100 years or 2000 years later. This is just about or a little over three days later. At the moment, not fizzled and distorted with time.

Nobody was converted after David Curesh, or the Jimmy Jones or Heavens Gate. Because there was NO validation of the claims that these men made. Their unfounded and destructive programs and systems died with them. The few of the followers that they remain have renounced them as heritics, as liars, and evil. This was NOT the case with the historical Christ.

[geoff]

i find it humurous that people claim that i cant use scripture as proof or that its not valid enough. the point is that you are trying to ask me to prove God and you say that He cant be real or He is imaginary by using scripture themselves and try to say that He cant be what the word says He is so He is not real. funny how the bible is used to try and disprove Him and say that it contradicts itself and some of you use that but i in turn am not allowed to use biblical arguements because they are not " valid " enough for proof but ok to use as disproving Him.


i say this to one and all " non-believers " you can rant and rave how there is no god and you dont have enough evidence and that faith means nothing...but untill you yourself do an in depth search to see for yourself then you have no right to say we as believers are wrong. there are plenty of tools out there for you to use to study...bible, sociology, psychology, ect...until then you are all just going off of some other persons study and are following their claims and not your own. you have faith to believe Dawkins is right because he studies science yet you yourself say faith is not enough for me lol.

[trini_gsr]

a lot happened in this thread since I checked it last

in sport's defense i'll say this. pretty much all sciences, belief systems, etc usually start out with a given set of assumptions. Once these assumptions are accepted, then you can work out proving theories within that framework. for example, in euclidean geometry you start out with the assumptions (aka definitions) of the idea of a point, a line, and space. from these 3 simple assumptions, all of geometry is built. and obviously it is useful however if you don't accept those 3 assumptions as unprovable facts...it all comes crashing down.

Just like scientists believe in the Big Bang (not knowing where the original matter came from) and build forward from there, personally speaking, I assume that God is rational and is responsible for the creation of the universe. And I build my worldview from here using logic (because my original assumption implies that God gave us logic to determine the nature of our universe).

That's just me, and I *think* sport122 is the same. Now this approach allows my worldview to change and grow as I gain new info, which is the downfall of most "religions", and where science has them beat - they are too static. I see science and spirituality as two sides to the same coin. Something I always tell ppl is "where science ends, spirituality begins". It's ultimately describing the same continuum of reality. And as we learn more things about our universe, it obviously has to be able to grow and change with it.

Where that puts the Bible, Jesus, etc? Is a different story. I'll say for now that I don't accept the Bible as a 100% accurate history book. That isn't its purpose. As far as Jesus being an alien? As far as I'm concerned you could consider GOD to be an alien too so it isn't far-fetched. He (or I should say IT) definitely was extraterrestrial, which is the definition of an alien anyhow...

Nice thread though, it's already given me some things to ponder...

[sport_122]

i find it humurous that people claim that i cant use scripture as proof or that its not valid enough. the point is that you are trying to ask me to prove God and you say that He cant be real or He is imaginary by using scripture themselves and try to say that He cant be what the word says He is so He is not real. funny how the bible is used to try and disprove Him and say that it contradicts itself and some of you use that but i in turn am not allowed to use biblical arguments because they are not " valid " enough for proof but ok to use as disproving Him.

What...you didnt know there was a double standard. It goes both ways though because there are believers who do this same thing.

That's just me, and I *think* sport122 is the same. Now this approach allows my worldview to change and grow as I gain new info, which is the downfall of most "religions", and where science has them beat - they are too static. I see science and spirituality as two sides to the same coin. Something I always tell ppl is "where science ends, spirituality begins". It's ultimately describing the same continuum of reality. And as we learn more things about our universe, it obviously has to be able to grow and change with it.

The rejection to change is also present in the sciences (social and natural). People don't realize how many versions of theories like evolution, and dark matter there are. This is because the rejection to change is not about the institution its about the individual. And because I do not believe science to be evil, I cannot assume its problems come from the core of the institution as much as it comes from people interpreting and altering its original intent, much like they do the institutions of government, politics (not the same as gov't), education, religion etc etc.

Ironically this same thing that I believe to be demonstrated in our world is also demonstrated about us in the Bible. The very fact that some would say the bible can't be trusted because its too old, is based off of the mindset that we know men often ruin things for whatever good they may have been. The reason we have become skeptical of ourselves is also evidence of that mindset.

[ahabion]

So again: IT'S ALL A BELIEF THAT CAN NOT BE PROVEN. VERY STUPID IMO.

[trini_gsr]

The rejection to change is also present in the sciences (social and natural). People don't realize how many versions of theories like evolution, and dark matter there are. This is because the rejection to change is not about the institution its about the individual. And because I do not believe science to be evil, I cannot assume its problems come from the core of the institution as much as it comes from people interpreting and altering its original intent, much like they do the institutions of government, politics (not the same as gov't), education, religion etc etc.

the difference, however, is that the "core institution" for science has never claimed to be infallible. egos aside, it is ok for science to be wrong. religion on the other hand doesn't have this luxury, the way most of them are currently set up.

so i understand why there is a double standard. if you're claiming to be 100% right you better be...otherwise you lose credibility once proven wrong.

[ahabion]

the difference, however, is that the "core institution" for science has never claimed to be infallible. egos aside, it is ok for science to be wrong. religion on the other hand doesn't have this luxury, the way most of them are currently set up.

so i understand why there is a double standard. if you're claiming to be 100% right you better be...otherwise you lose credibility once proven wrong.

How much proof is enough to prove it wrong?

[trini_gsr]

How much proof is enough to prove it wrong?

being wrong about even the smallest thing is enough to bring the house of cards tumbling down, i'd say

[yojimbo]

romans 6:23 KJV "says for the wages of sin is death;
but the gift of god is eternal life through jesus christ our lord."

salvation is the gift of god?

a gift is something someone gives you without doing anything.. if someone gives you a gift,
they do all the work; all you have to do is accept it.


dont understand why someone has to give up their soul to receive enternal salvation.

[geoff]

a gift is something someone gives you without doing anything.. if someone gives you a gift,
they do all the work; all you have to do is accept it.

yojimbo your very right with this. salvation is a gift, a gift that God did not have to provide for us. He could have easily just let us keep doin it the same way in the old testament and none of us would make it. and the part where you said " if someone gives a gift they do all the work; all you have to do is ACCEPT" God came as Jesus. He lived a pure and perfect life, He taught us how to live and He then was tortured and took on all our sins and was then crucified to be the perfect and ultimate sacrifice. He did all the work. we just have to accept 1. that He is real and He is Lord.2. accept that God is real and He died for us. and then finnally 3. accept this gift and make Him Lord of our lives. so it is a gift that we dont deserve.

i would also like to put this out there. i see you all asking us with faith to prove ourselves but none of you have provided proof that He isnt real. i invite all challengers to give me your proof that God doesnt exist and i will debunk it. bring it on!

[Ocelot]

geoff, the proof that could be used to debunk God is the lack of proof that one exists. no concrete evidence, just stories.

never has there been anytime, thing or place that was "proven" to not exist.

[ahabion]

i would also like to put this out there. i see you all asking us with faith to prove ourselves but none of you have provided proof that He isnt real. i invite all challengers to give me your proof that God doesnt exist and i will debunk it. bring it on!

What proof do you have in YOUR life that God is real?

[geoff]

i keep hearing the same things over and over agian. where is my proof? i have provided my side of the arguement by giving scientific studies that were done, natural laws, cause and effect, and so on. i have person things that have happend to me that prove God...to me cuz i have faith. i am asking once agian. where is the non believers proof? i want to hear proof of why God cant exist. i want to see studies i wanna see evidence that there is NO way that God can exist not the usuall well you cant prove it so that means He doesnt exist. lets hear it guys. come on

[sport_122]

the difference, however, is that the "core institution" for science has never claimed to be infallible. egos aside, it is ok for science to be wrong. religion on the other hand doesn't have this luxury, the way most of them are currently set up.

so i understand why there is a double standard. if you're claiming to be 100% right you better be...otherwise you lose credibility once proven wrong.

That depends on what you think the core of the Christian faith is. I do not believe the Bible is the core of the Christian faith. I believe Christ is the core of the Christian faith and the Bible is only one of the many things that testify to who he was. People always talk about the word of God (the Bible), but they miss the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the word. He is the Logos (The Word that was, is and is to come), and he is what breathes the validity into the Bible. The Bible is NOT eternal, but the word (the Logos/Jesus) is. I cannot base my faith on what is not eternal because what is not eternally binding for us does not suit my requirements as things that are not eternal are ever changing. Because without Christ even the moral teachings of the Bible are worthless. (this is a much deeper discussion than I care to go into on this forum)

You can be a believer and have never touched the Bible. The Logos (Jesus) is only partially understood through scripture. I believe the rest of it to be understood through other resources. Which is why the resurrection of Christ is so important. Without that NONE of the Christian faith is valid.

i keep hearing the same things over and over agian. where is my proof? i have provided my side of the arguement by giving scientific studies that were done, natural laws, cause and effect, and so on. i have person things that have happend to me that prove God...to me cuz i have faith. i am asking once agian. where is the non believers proof? i want to hear proof of why God cant exist. i want to see studies i wanna see evidence that there is NO way that God can exist not the usuall well you cant prove it so that means He doesnt exist. lets hear it guys. come on

Geoff, I think he is asking for your reasoning. I don't think he is telling you to make a persuasive argument.

How much proof is enough to prove it wrong?

This is where i will sound crazy to some.
For me, it would take proving that the resurrection did not occur, or that our universe is not subservient to laws. This does not mean that the laws of our universe cannot be broken, but proving that they are routinely broken by an understood means. These are two philosophically impossible things to do though. Which is why I am a believer. Because I cannot find fault in these arguments and all knowledge we have ever gained fails at the point of proving any of this which makes the argument of proof invalid for me. This sounds stubborn, but it is my worldview, that without a transcendent God, our universe cannot function as it does, and without the resurrection, the faith and hope for redemption from that which makes me unable to live up to his standard is lost. I believe that somehow the cosmos is for us, and we cannot inherit it until we have demonstrated that we understand our place in it. Until we understand that this universe is not about war, gaining power, or influence, but its about enjoying what has been created and getting to know our God as he waits to further reveal himself to us, we will continue to suffer and hurt one another and anguish over things that we desire yet do not bring us joy.

geoff, the proof that could be used to debunk God is the lack of proof that one exists. no concrete evidence, just stories.

never has there been anytime, thing or place that was "proven" to not exist.

That is an subjective statement, it depends on who is presenting and who is accepting the evidence

Not true. The lack of proof of something is also NOT a valid argument for its non-existence. We did not know of radio waves, we did not know of photons, we did not know of black holes, we did not know of certain islands, etc etc. In these cases, there was no evidence to any of this, it was only until we gained the ability to understand them that they were made known (meaning understood and known to be). and even now, scientifically there are many things that we know of, but we have no idea what makes them work. I actually believe that everyone inside has something that tells them that we are products of something greater. I believe that everyone feels somehow that there is something more. If we didn't we would not question. we seek knowledge because we know there is knowledge to gain. I believe that just like some people are in denial about Global warming (whichever way you believe) or about E.T.'s (whichever way you believe) these topics compel us because we do not know our universe and we do not really understand ourselves.

dont understand why someone has to give up their soul to receive enternal salvation.

yojimbo, there is so much more to it. But simply put, I don't believe that I have given up my soul as much as I have gained the ability for it to be free knowing that I have a covenant with God. And the God I believe in has demonstrated his love to me that while I was evil on this earth and not living according to his law, and I deserved death, he stepped in and forgave me and paid the price for my disobedience. And not only that, but that demonstration was sealed with His own blood. It was free because I could not work for this gift as nothing that I do for his approval is adequate. And he has never not fulfilled a covenant. He said that he would provide us a way to him and Christ was that way. Christ demonstrated the truth of who he was by conquering the very method of my punishment as he rose from being dead for three days. So what has happened is I have not given up my soul, I have gained it as it will be with the one for whom there was no beginning and there will be no end.

[BABY J]

...This is where i will sound crazy to some.

No - you sounded crazy well before this post (i like our interaction on this subj so I feel you got the stomach to take a few jabs in fun)

...
For me, it would take proving that the resurrection did not occur,

Your "proof" thus far is eyewitness testimony and the fact that men "of God" died rather than denounce him. These men are men who were already co-signers and "brainwashed" to think that they will burn in hell w/out Him. What do you think that means? That's no different than me saying "Islam is the best religion ever and all Americans suck and need to die and leave Iraq" on camera when just off camera there is a towel-head w/ a shotgun is aimed at my nut sack.

......or that our universe is not subservient to laws. This does not mean that the laws of our universe cannot be broken, but proving that they are routinely broken by an understood means...

So "God" has already proven this w/ the "miracles" that she performed. Or is God the only person that can outright ignore the laws of the universe since She is a big pimp?

[ahabion]

i keep hearing the same things over and over agian. where is my proof? i have provided my side of the arguement by giving scientific studies that were done, natural laws, cause and effect, and so on. i have person things that have happend to me that prove God...to me cuz i have faith. i am asking once agian. where is the non believers proof? i want to hear proof of why God cant exist. i want to see studies i wanna see evidence that there is NO way that God can exist not the usuall well you cant prove it so that means He doesnt exist. lets hear it guys. come on

As Sport said, not trying to be argumentative... just want you to provide your proof as to how God is real in Your life. (in Christian circles, its referred to: testimony brother)

[DynamicSound]

Jesus a alien?

I guess that it makes just as much sense as god being real.

[sport_122]

No - you sounded crazy well before this post (i like our interaction on this subj so I feel you got the stomach to take a few jabs in fun)

Yeah man, I'm up for a few jabs from ya. I am keepin my eyes open for them

Your "proof" thus far is eyewitness testimony and the fact that men "of God" died rather than denounce him. These men are men who were already co-signers and "brainwashed" to think that they will burn in hell w/out Him. What do you think that means? That's no different than me saying "Islam is the best religion ever and all Americans suck and need to die and leave Iraq" on camera when just off camera there is a towel-head w/ a shotgun is aimed at my nut sack.

Actually its very different. Name a guy from Islam who said, I am going to die, but I will not stay dead. These men were not following a militant leader, they followed someone who made very radical claims, that would have gotten him killed in that region (even today you would be killed for making claims to be God), but unlike anyone else in history He delivered and that delivery made them sign up. If he had not had some serious legitimacy He would have disappeared into history as another guy who was killed.

So "God" has already proven this w/ the "miracles" that she performed. Or is God the only person that can outright ignore the laws of the universe since She is a big pimp?

Baby J, this is twice that I think you are understanding me more than anyone else. Even though I know you don't agree with me.

But you are hitting on my point exactly...again. Thats what was demonstrated in the miracles was that God alone had the power to ordain such things to happen. Remember at this time, (as far as anything I have read) nobody was performing these types of miracles and historically they are happening around people of God. So this was the first notice that I take. We could say that Christ was just doing what prophets before him were doing. But Christ separated himself when he said he would rise and then followed through on that claim.

What's important to me, is that those who have not truthfully investigated this with an open understanding realize that if this amazing miracle did happen, then there are some very significant things about us, that are linked to his resurrection. For the believer it means that he is our reason, he is our provided evidence of not only is God real, but he does care about us, he does want us to know him, he is just and he is justice, and he alone has the power to deliver us from the one thing that we all must face, death. For the non-believer, it means that we ought to go out of our way to try to understand the case for Christ, because nothing else we have tried has even come close to delivering understanding and peace to humanity.

This is so important, because if we realize that it doesn't end here, only then can we discard the humanistic approach to life, which IMO is the underlying poison of all things, and we can be embraced as ones who are ready to step further into this relationship with him and all that he has created and all that he has in store and wants to show us. But the humanistic approach is a false realism. It makes us think that we are in control, it makes us think that we know, it makes us think that we can be like God, and it is the embodiment of our pride. This approach is killing us, just read the news, or pick up a history book if you think I'm wrong. We are becoming more secular, smarter, and more technologically advanced as a world, and we are getting WORSE. Humanism tells us that these things will make us better and that is a lie just watch the news for 10 minutes. In fact humanism, has infiltrated all of our institutions by way of the corruptible human heart, and it has proven itself to be destructive in our history and the eminent (maybe inevitable) destruction of ourselves. But all of this is avoidable, by the existence of a very real God and the power he demonstrated in the resurrection of Christ.

[Maniacc]

Faith is for the weak and is a detriment to expansion of consciousness.

If one day it is proven that some giant bearded man who lives in the clouds that just self manifested himself and decided to create the Earth with a point of a finger, then fine.

I'm sure non-believers would be convinced.

But you see - thermodynamic, 'theories,' have already been proven true in smaller systems. Meanwhile, every religion has huge gaps of logic, plain falsehoods, plagerisms, and mass contradictions. It has nothing to do with faith, but using that sponge thing in your head to lean in 'belief' towards the most plausible 'theory.' Religion is for the cavemen era. It gave their nascent minds comfort to try and figure out the world around them. Unfortuantely their strive to understand became overtaken by their egos pretending to know and by others recognizing these fairy tales could be exploited to control large groups of people.

Life is like walking through a forest. Religious people follow one path convinced it's the right one -- then you have your non-believers that go where their mind leads them. Using logic and reason it usually results in 'getting out of the forest' and back into civilization/reality.

[trini_gsr]

That depends on what you think the core of the Christian faith is. I do not believe the Bible is the core of the Christian faith. I believe Christ is the core of the Christian faith and the Bible is only one of the many things that testify to who he was. People always talk about the word of God (the Bible), but they miss the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the word. He is the Logos (The Word that was, is and is to come), and he is what breathes the validity into the Bible. The Bible is NOT eternal, but the word (the Logos/Jesus) is. I cannot base my faith on what is not eternal because what is not eternally binding for us does not suit my requirements as things that are not eternal are ever changing. Because without Christ even the moral teachings of the Bible are worthless. (this is a much deeper discussion than I care to go into on this forum)

You can be a believer and have never touched the Bible. The Logos (Jesus) is only partially understood through scripture. I believe the rest of it to be understood through other resources. Which is why the resurrection of Christ is so important. Without that NONE of the Christian faith is valid.

great points. without going off on a serious tangent, i think the major difference between our worldviews is that GOD is at the center of mine, while Jesus is at the center of yours. I don't believe that GOD = Jesus.

Additionally...I am of the opinion that "eternal" doesn't have to necessarily imply unchanging. To relate it back to nature...a system can have a bunch of little changes but as long as the net effect is ZERO, equilibrium is maintained. to put it better, "eternal" isn't the same thing is "static". And I believe God to be a dynamic being bc the universe is constantly changing.

This is where i will sound crazy to some.
For me, it would take proving that the resurrection did not occur, or that our universe is not subservient to laws.

Speaking about the resurrection, what proof do you have (outside of what is mentioned in the Bible itself) that the resurrection DID occur? i'm asking bc i think this conversation is about to take some interesting turns . and i'd like to see where your head is on this before we proceed further.

[geoff]

there are many historical writings of Jesus. many from non believing jews that sought to kill Him and also roman and greek philosophers and historians. all of them well known. its the same as historical writings of shakespear or socratese or da vinci. we never met these men nor heard them speak but there is still un deniable historical evidence of their existence. same for Christ and the resurection

[trini_gsr]

there are many historical writings of Jesus. many from non believing jews that sought to kill Him and also roman and greek philosophers and historians. all of them well known. its the same as historical writings of shakespear or socratese or da vinci. we never met these men nor heard them speak but there is still un deniable historical evidence of their existence. same for Christ and the resurection

could you give me some specifics? i'm not talking about whether he existed. that fact is pretty verifiable. i'm speaking specifically about the resurrection. sport122 implied that there is historical proof of this and i'd like to know what documents outside of the Bible testify to Jesus' resurrection.

[geoff]

the writings of josephus the jew and tacitus the roman speak of Jesus and His miracles aswell as Him appearing after His death.

[geoff]

by the way trini gsr were you the one asking me for my testimony?

[sport_122]

could you give me some specifics? i'm not talking about whether he existed. that fact is pretty verifiable. i'm speaking specifically about the resurrection. sport122 implied that there is historical proof of this and i'd like to know what documents outside of the Bible testify to Jesus' resurrection.

I have others as well. I just need to know if you want modern philosophers/historians or if you want all 1-3rd century info. Geoff has mentioned two already... but if you like I can quote or point you to a number of authors or modern writers, but it is hard to have this discussion if you do not read their work and simply providing names and quotes rarely summarizes their positions.

Also, I want to make sure its clear that I said there is evidence for us to believe it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. the eyewitnesses experienced proof after the resurrection. We can only look at the presented evidence for this case...

Lastly, I want to point out that the first piece of evidence logically has to be the Bible, as it is our first known report of the event. We cannot examine the case of the resurrection without the resurrection story as presented in the NT, even if only for the account, we have to use the Bible. It would be logical fallacy to ignore it because without it we have no account and we have nothing to provide evidence for. And in that examination, we should also remember that the books, and the accounts and letters are just as much a piece of the puzzle as anything else. My point is that without the Bible there is no story of which evidence is needed. Much like you could not put someone on trial and refuse their testimony of the event or the testimony of the other eye witnesses with the assumption that they could not give an accurate account of the event.

Maybe we should start another thread if we are going to dig into all of this? Because there is a ton of history that needs to be laid out and this thread is going to go way off topic when we get started.

[geoff]

i think everyone just finally saw how ludicris it was to claim Jesus was an alien. i vote for a new thread. sport if you wanna lead this up and start out with what you have( historical accounts, scientific, sociological, ect) to finally once and for all put all our evidence out there. i think it would be interesting. i will be right behind you postin everything i have.

[geoff]

maniac, all paths lead to somewhere, i have used my logic and when i first got into christianity and started learning i was like everyone else...i tried to pick it apart. but along the "road of believers" God built up my faith and where my own limited reason and logic and all the contrary "evidence" out there God stepped in and filled in the blanks

[trini_gsr]

I have others as well. I just need to know if you want modern philosophers/historians or if you want all 1-3rd century info. Geoff has mentioned two already... but if you like I can quote or point you to a number of authors or modern writers, but it is hard to have this discussion if you do not read their work and simply providing names and quotes rarely summarizes their positions.

Also, I want to make sure its clear that I said there is evidence for us to believe it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. the eyewitnesses experienced proof after the resurrection. We can only look at the presented evidence for this case...

Lastly, I want to point out that the first piece of evidence logically has to be the Bible, as it is our first known report of the event. We cannot examine the case of the resurrection without the resurrection story as presented in the NT, even if only for the account, we have to use the Bible. It would be logical fallacy to ignore it because without it we have no account and we have nothing to provide evidence for. And in that examination, we should also remember that the books, and the accounts and letters are just as much a piece of the puzzle as anything else. My point is that without the Bible there is no story of which evidence is needed. Much like you could not put someone on trial and refuse their testimony of the event or the testimony of the other eye witnesses with the assumption that they could not give an accurate account of the event.

Maybe we should start another thread if we are going to dig into all of this? Because there is a ton of history that needs to be laid out and this thread is going to go way off topic when we get started.

i guess the resurrection story as presented in the Bible is what is "on trial" here. Just like in court I can say "I didn't do it" but there has to be independently verifiable evidence (an alibi) in order for me to expect anyone to take my word for it.

I'm familiar with the works of Josephus and Tacitus, but I've never seen anything outside of the NT accounts that speak on Jesus' resurrection. I actually count Josephus/Tacitus as objective sources that can verify that he *lived*. Not necessarily that he was resurrected. Objectively speaking I haven't seen evidence that can qualify his resurrection (as opposed to his life). So I'm open to any info you want to share. We can start another thread if u wish.

[trini_gsr]

by the way trini gsr were you the one asking me for my testimony?

nah that wasnt me that was the other guy, i forget his name

[hydroshutter]

Maybe Jesus was an Alien that landed on Earth with advanced technology and wanted to help us to improve our lives. A certain group of people who controlled the world from behind the scenes saw this as a bad thing and wanted him dead. So they killed him to remain in control of the sheeple. Seems possible.

History Channel Ancient Aliens 2009 HD 720p part 1 Interesting shit, no doubt.

[d993s]

.....

[d993s]

A little early for christmass

[BABY J]

http://www.answering-christianity.co...ction_hoax.htm

[geoff]

once agian people use the bible to try and disprove but we as believers cant use it as evidence. funny no?

[geoff]

i also like to point out how your little evidence baby j first says that paul only said Jesus was crucified for our sins and then rose from the dead. it then later states that paul never mentioned Jesus rising agian. funny how it states the bible contradicts itself then it goes and does it.

[sport_122]

http://www.answering-christianity.co...ction_hoax.htm

There are so many things wrong with this article. I am not even going to get into it.

Baby J... are you investigating Islam?

[sport_122]

i guess the resurrection story as presented in the Bible is what is "on trial" here. Just like in court I can say "I didn't do it" but there has to be independently verifiable evidence (an alibi) in order for me to expect anyone to take my word for it.

I'm familiar with the works of Josephus and Tacitus, but I've never seen anything outside of the NT accounts that speak on Jesus' resurrection. I actually count Josephus/Tacitus as objective sources that can verify that he *lived*. Not necessarily that he was resurrected. Objectively speaking I haven't seen evidence that can qualify his resurrection (as opposed to his life). So I'm open to any info you want to share. We can start another thread if u wish.

Lemme get some stuff together and I will post it up. I will get a new thread going as well. But it will be Friday or late tomorrow (Thurs) night when I do it. And for the sake of compiling arguments I may go one step at a time. I am trying to get out of the long posts, but I just feel like I need to walk on eggshells because someone is always trying to "twist" my words or quote me without understanding me.

[geoff]

i would like to point out why there are some differences in the gospels. they do not condradict themselves but eachone gives a different point of view. take this for example...

if you put a class of seniors in high school to watch a video for 2 days and then tell them to wright a report on it, each and every report will be different even tho they watched the same vidoe, took in the same info, and experienced the same things. why? because different things stood out to different people. some focus on certian parts and others on another. this does not mean that the reports will condradict themselves or that they are lying or even that you can use one to disprove the other