Could Jesus have been an alien?

[sport_122]

If your post above is supposed to prove something, it doesn't.
Faith= belief. Proof and evidence do not require faith, since it becomes redundant.
I didn't ask what color the red car is....

wrong...that is NOT what I said at all. I said that my faith is not based off of nothing. But in describing my faith, you cannot assume that ALL things should be tangible because proof cannot logically be based on tangibility. My faith is based off of a compilation of reasoning and logical rational when I use the numerous resources given to me by God to see him apart from blind faith. And those resources are not tangible. Can you put science in my hand? Can you put philosophy or history in my hand? No. These are not physical things. They are conceptualized to define human action or a framework of human study.

Proof and evidence do require faith. Nobody can prove anything to you if you do not have faith that the evidence is sound or it was reasonable and rationally gathered. Even in a science lab, if you feel like I have tampered with the experiment then my results in your mind will be void. This is even demonstrated in this post, when some of us believe that there is definitely an extraterrestrial presence on our planet, and some of us (even having seen the same evidence) reject it.

[d993s]

wrong...that is NOT what I said at all. I said that my faith is not based off of nothing. But in describing my faith, you cannot assume that ALL things should be tangible because proof cannot logically be based on tangibility. My faith is based off of a compilation of reasoning and logical rational when I use the numerous resources given to me by God to see him apart from blind faith. And those resources are not tangible. Can you put science in my hand? Can you put philosophy or history in my hand? No. These are not physical things. They are conceptualized to define human action or a framework of human study.

Proof and evidence do require faith. Nobody can prove anything to you if you do not have faith that the evidence is sound or it was reasonable and rationally gathered. Even in a science lab, if you feel like I have tampered with the experiment then my results in your mind will be void. This is even demonstrated in this post, when some of us believe that there is definitely an extraterrestrial presence on our planet, and some of us (even having seen the same evidence) reject it.

HAHAHA!
Again, faith has no logic, no reason, and "resources given by god" is also a belief, NOT A FACT.

[sport_122]

HAHAHA!
Again, faith has no logic, no reason, and "resources given by god" is also a belief, NOT A FACT.

if you believe that faith and fact cannot coexist on the same subject matter then do you do not believe in the orbit of the earth as it was calculated thousands of years ago, the moon, the sun, the galaxy which were all identified millenia ago, etc. Do you believe evolution is real? Do you believe that going to college will yield you a higher paying job, or adding a certain part will make your car faster than someone elses. These are all actions that people take first based off of observational experience, then based off of faith, and then can easily become fact.

Come on, let's move onto "miracles" done by god....
I once gave $500 to a poor christian family who was in need. I never told them it was from me. Back then I went to church and they actually announced it as a "MIRACLE" from god!!!!!
WELL FOCKEN AYE, I guess that makes me GOD! LMFAO! It's been over 10 years, and they still talk about it as a "miracle from god". I bet if I told them that it was ME who gave them the $, they would say something like "god instructed you to do it" to which I would reply "no, actually I was fucking your daughter at the time and felt the need to do a regular-ass good deed because it's satifying knowing that you helped someone.

but who told you that I would call this a miracle. I wouldn't. I would call it provision. Provision is a result of all the factors of your life coming together at one time. And where need (not greed or desire) meet at supply or sustenance, I would call that provision. Provision can be explained away easily by some and there is room for interpretation, however as the two random things flow together, I believe it is God who determines those moments. But those aren't miracles by definition.

By definition miracles are what happens OUTSIDE the regular laws of the universe/ our world. an example that you point to is the resurrection. I have mentioned it several times because it is THAT important, as even YOU said

When you learn to accept mortality as a fact of life on this planet, you will realize that there is no salvation. Stop dreaming, live your life, leave your mark in history (hopefully in a positive way), and do what you can to improve and allow intelligence to expand as rapidly as possible (religious beliefs have always hindered or denied human advancement)

This is where the miracle really rears it ugly head for the non believer. And this is what I would call a miracle. If people were being raised from the dead all the time this would go un noticed because it would be natural. this event has left a HUGE mark on our world history. There have been hordes of historians who have tried to disprove it, but cannot. Because of several reasons.

First, the explosion of the Christian church immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ. Had he not risen, the messages that he spoke and the deeds that he did would have been immediately dismissed as he openly claimed that he would rise again.

Second, There are plenty of first Century Roman historians who have written about the man of Christ and about his death and his followers and the miracles that they were known to have worked.

Third, did you know that after his resurrection he is said to have been on this earth for no less than 40 days. At that time there were hundreds of witnesses who saw him, and his physical body and his ascension.

The list goes on an on. Modern day secular historians have said that they cannot dismiss this miracle as it is accounted for through many records that are NOT of biblical foundation.

I could point you in the direction of plenty of authors, secular and religious, who will tell you that the story of the resurrection cannot be easily dismissed to a hoax and should be looked at with intent to understand it because its place and meaning are so profound to who we are.

And if almost 2000 years of history and knowledge have not discredited the resurrection, and the story is still powerful in our world then there obviously is something to it.

I say all this knowing that what I said before still holds true. You have decided to close your mind to this possibility for what it is and replace it with that which you know to be a part of the laws of existence when in the resurrection, and the miracles performed by Christ, He established his authority to us by defining what we knew to be the laws of our universe and then showing that His power alone could break those laws. That power was later given to the disciples. And what is even more ironic is that you believe in the laws of our world and not a lawlessness, yet just as in the commandments the law was established so that the opposite of the law could be given light.

This is what defines miracles, this is how God demonstrated himself to men all over the world, but we get so used to the "norm" that we ignore the existence of the abnormal. We are currently in a period where we are trying to ignore morality and its origins and next we will try to dismiss the laws of nature and surely enough we will be put in our place again. How? I don't know but history shows that we have a habit of forgetting our problems in favor of embracing and living by sight, when it is very obvious that our world is made up of much more than what we can see.

[BABY J]

if you believe that faith and fact cannot coexist on the same subject matter then do you do not believe in the orbit of the earth as it was calculated thousands of years ago, the moon, the sun, the galaxy which were all identified millenia ago, etc. Do you believe evolution is real? Do you believe that going to college will yield you a higher paying job, or adding a certain part will make your car faster than someone elses. These are all actions that people take first based off of observational experience, then based off of faith, and then can easily become fact.

This is not fair. FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for - the "evidence" of things NOT seen. So in your example FAITH would be me thinking that my 12.50 Honda will outrun a 11.50 Viper just b/c I pray really hard. The "laws" of horesepower production w/ respect to traction doesn't require FAITH. If I injest more air and fuel at the proper time w/ the spark at the right time i WILL make more horsepower. That does not require FAITH at at all, it just requires precison of all of the elements. These "elements" do not exist w/ a walk w/ God. You can see this in your explanations b/c you always factor in a "copout" w/ phrases like "Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something" You set it up perfectly to where you get to a point that you are not held to the standard to PRODUCE - and that's a shame - really, it is.

First, the explosion of the Christian church immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ. Had he not risen, the messages that he spoke and the deeds that he did would have been immediately dismissed as he openly claimed that he would rise again.

All the reason for the Church to steal his DEAD body before others did to propagate this crap. I mean there are people trying to steal Michael Jackson's body. The popularity of the Christian church is DEFINITELY not proof of anything. When are you going to learn that people are fickle - people ride the hype for the moment. Look at MJ record sales -- people who never gave a FUCK about him are buying his shit like he is anew artist... all of a sudden we all are MJ fans. So you can imagine in a time when there is no internet, no radio, no TV, and all is word of mouth --- some quack who is more suited for a Circus act makes rediculous claims to get free foot rubs and food wherever he goes will be big news.

[QUOTE=sport_122Second, There are plenty of first Century Roman historians who have written about the man of Christ and about his death and his followers and the miracles that they were known to have worked.[/quote]

Come on man. Look at IA. Look at the guys that were FAST (quick) well before it was supposed to be popular to do it in a FWD Honda. The stories you hear are RETARDED. I've had people walk up to me after they realize I am "Baby J" and say "I've heard about you man --- didn't you have like a 200 shot on single cams back in the day and were outrunning turbo Vettes?" LOL. I laugh and say - "yeah, I was def one of the only guys pushing Nitrous limits on stock D series Civics, but it was nowhere NEAR 200 and I wasn't raping boosted vettes." Was I fast - you bet!! Was I pushing limit - YOU BET. But that was only in the 90s, and you see how convoluted the stories about me have gotten ALREADY!!! Now set yourself back in bible times and imagine how popular a "magician" or "side-show freak" could get IN A HURRY. 2000 years later the guy was walking on water and then dying and then being ressurected.

And since we are on writing --- why does "the church" pick and choose what books/stories were included in the final cut? What about entire BOOKS about how no matter what every1 goes to heaven that were magically not included?? These books were authored by some of the same people that have books in "your bible" already. You know why those were not included? Control.

[QUOTE=sport_122
Third, did you know that after his resurrection he is said to have been on this earth for no less than 40 days. At that time there were hundreds of witnesses who saw him, and his physical body and his ascension.[/quote]

You know how many MLK, Elvis, Michael Jackson, JFK sightings there have been? People see what they want to belive and I KNOW you know this. People that are star-struck or fanatics will ALWAYS see what they want to see. I am a D series fan FOR LIFE. Even now I think that no matter WHAT kinda power you make w/ a K series, I can build a D that will outrun it - LOL. For the churches benefit he HAD to rise --- whether he rose or whether the church wanted to make it look like he did. Just add water and you have your instant hero.

We are currently in a period where we are trying to ignore morality [/b]and its origins and next we will try to dismiss the laws of nature and surely enough we will be put in our place again. How? I don't know but history shows that we have a habit of forgetting our problems in favor of embracing and living by sight, when it is very obvious that our world is made up of much more than what we can see.

You are in a place where you are trying to ignore mortality - that is a MUCH slicker slope IMO.

I thi

[quickdodge®]

whether he rose or whether the church wanted to make it look like he did. Just add water and you have your instant hero.

Sounds like you're promoting Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Jesus. Later, QD.

[slow_hatch]

I like to throw this in all the religious threads.

[slow_hatch]

Found this one funny too

[sport_122]

This is not fair. FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for - the "evidence" of things NOT seen. So in your example FAITH would be me thinking that my 12.50 Honda will outrun a 11.50 Viper just b/c I pray really hard. The "laws" of horesepower production w/ respect to traction doesn't require FAITH. If I injest more air and fuel at the proper time w/ the spark at the right time i WILL make more horsepower. That does not require FAITH at at all, it just requires precison of all of the elements. These "elements" do not exist w/ a walk w/ God. You can see this in your explanations b/c you always factor in a "copout" w/ phrases like "Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something" You set it up perfectly to where you get to a point that you are not held to the standard to PRODUCE - and that's a shame - really, it is.


You are in a place where you are trying to ignore mortality - that is a MUCH slicker slope IMO.

I thi

Your example is not the same as what i said. In your address you have the evidence to show that you will NOT win. the faith that you are discussing is called blind faith. I do not believe that belief in a transcendent God is built off of Blind faith.

All the reason for the Church to steal his DEAD body before others did to propagate this crap.

I commented on this in my last post.

Also, 2000 years have not separated the texts. as I have said before we have many of the originals still. maybe 50-300 years ish.

Also, the documents that are written in the bible are presented for a reason. they looked to include people who gave first hand accounts, and at the time of text selection one of the biggest discussion were the validity of the texts. By the time they selected texts they decided to include only those texts which were being used and verified by numerous churches of the time. so lets say you had a church in France, I had one in Germany, and maniacc had one in the U.K. When we came together we would find that as individual churches we had already accepted some of the same books. That is the simple version, but there is a lot more that goes on this topic as well. This stuff is not what people make of it on the surface. it wasn't flip a coin book selection and the only time something was omitted was when King James made his version and started the Anglican church (in this case it was control). Other than that we have always had access to original documents. And the books that are included are included to their fullness. But again, there is LOTS of history that goes with this. I don't think it was about, I think it was about unification.

For the churches benefit he HAD to rise --- whether he rose or whether the church wanted to make it look like he did. Just add water and you have your instant hero.

Remember that there was no Church at that moment. The church wasn't established until he rose. At that time Jesus had worked enough miracles for the few who believed in him to be satisfied. Its the resurrection that commissioned them to go out. Without the resurrection and the witnesses to Christ (he claimed openly and was seen openly) there would be no church. these people would have disappeared much like our modern day cult followers.

But do you think that these men would have died for something they new was fake? I mean, if you had hoaxed a "resurrection" would you have died for it, when they were given all sorts of opportunity to dismiss their claims? That tells me that something very real was going on for them and that very real thing was not sparked by Christs life or death, but it was sparked by his resurrection. Even at his death we see that Christ was alone. Peter had denied him and his followers were scattered.

[ahabion]

Your example is not the same as what i said. In your address you have the evidence to show that you will NOT win. the faith that you are discussing is called blind faith. I do not believe that belief in a transcendent God is built off of Blind faith.



I commented on this in my last post.

Also, 2000 years have not separated the texts. as I have said before we have many of the originals still. maybe 50-300 years ish.

Also, the documents that are written in the bible are presented for a reason. they looked to include people who gave first hand accounts, and at the time of text selection one of the biggest discussion were the validity of the texts. By the time they selected texts they decided to include only those texts which were being used and verified by numerous churches of the time. so lets say you had a church in France, I had one in Germany, and maniacc had one in the U.K. When we came together we would find that as individual churches we had already accepted some of the same books. That is the simple version, but there is a lot more that goes on this topic as well. This stuff is not what people make of it on the surface. it wasn't flip a coin book selection and the only time something was omitted was when King James made his version and started the Anglican church (in this case it was control). Other than that we have always had access to original documents. And the books that are included are included to their fullness. But again, there is LOTS of history that goes with this. I don't think it was about, I think it was about unification.



Remember that there was no Church at that moment. The church wasn't established until he rose. At that time Jesus had worked enough miracles for the few who believed in him to be satisfied. Its the resurrection that commissioned them to go out. Without the resurrection and the witnesses to Christ (he claimed openly and was seen openly) there would be no church. these people would have disappeared much like our modern day cult followers.

But do you think that these men would have died for something they new was fake? I mean, if you had hoaxed a "resurrection" would you have died for it, when they were given all sorts of opportunity to dismiss their claims? That tells me that something very real was going on for them and that very real thing was not sparked by Christs life or death, but it was sparked by his resurrection. Even at his death we see that Christ was alone. Peter had denied him and his followers were scattered.

Sorry Sport, you speak as if anyone here has any indication of what you're really talking about biblically.

They demand proof of existence but dismiss things that are written by men. They demand proof of birth, death, and resurrection but dismiss written testimonies of witnesses and deny the accounts of Acts of the latter visitations of Jesus to Peter and the early church.

The proof that they seek is that in which cannot be proven by anything tangible in their eyes (besides the Bible... but that's been dismissed). The only other proof is that of their own personal faith... but of course, that can't be proven from one person to another... afterall... its "personal" + "faith"

My assumption of most people here is that they've not done a true in-depth study of the Bible and it's information but rather a general or broad overview of the origins of Christianity and perhaps other religions. So to actually use the Bible as a reference is null and void to many here, being that its just a "story book full of contradictions" to them. (not calling anyone dumb or unintelligent by any means, quite the contrary) but the things we accept as truths are relevant from one person to another. (ie: what's true for me may not be true for you... so on and so forth)

[sport_122]

Sorry Sport, you speak as if anyone here has any indication of what you're really talking about biblically.

They demand proof of existence but dismiss things that are written by men. They demand proof of birth, death, and resurrection but dismiss written testimonies of witnesses and deny the accounts of Acts of the latter visitations of Jesus to Peter and the early church.

The proof that they seek is that in which cannot be proven by anything tangible in their eyes (besides the Bible... but that's been dismissed). The only other proof is that of their own personal faith... but of course, that can't be proven from one person to another... afterall... its "personal" + "faith"

My assumption of most people here is that they've not done a true in-depth study of the Bible and it's information but rather a general or broad overview of the origins of Christianity and perhaps other religions. So to actually use the Bible as a reference is null and void to many here, being that its just a "story book full of contradictions" to them. (not calling anyone dumb or unintelligent by any means, quite the contrary) but the things we accept as truths are relevant from one person to another. (ie: what's true for me may not be true for you... so on and so forth)

you actually stated the same thing very well. I just go into different details. Thanks

[d993s]

Sorry Sport, you speak as if anyone here has any indication of what you're really talking about biblically.

They demand proof of existence but dismiss things that are written by men. They demand proof of birth, death, and resurrection but dismiss written testimonies of witnesses and deny the accounts of Acts of the latter visitations of Jesus to Peter and the early church.

The proof that they seek is that in which cannot be proven by anything tangible in their eyes (besides the Bible... but that's been dismissed). The only other proof is that of their own personal faith... but of course, that can't be proven from one person to another... afterall... its "personal" + "faith"

My assumption of most people here is that they've not done a true in-depth study of the Bible and it's information but rather a general or broad overview of the origins of Christianity and perhaps other religions. So to actually use the Bible as a reference is null and void to many here, being that its just a "story book full of contradictions" to them. (not calling anyone dumb or unintelligent by any means, quite the contrary) but the things we accept as truths are relevant from one person to another. (ie: what's true for me may not be true for you... so on and so forth)

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

[BABY J]

But do you think that these men would have died for something they new was fake? I mean, if you had hoaxed a "resurrection" would you have died for it, when they were given all sorts of opportunity to dismiss their claims? That tells me that something very real was going on for them and that very real thing was not sparked by Christs life or death, but it was sparked by his resurrection. Even at his death we see that Christ was alone. Peter had denied him and his followers were scattered.

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.

[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.