Could Jesus have been an alien?

[sport_122]

I most certainly do NOT understand anything you wrote. I simply asked for tangible (something I can actually see or hear or touch). And by those I don't mean to see Bible. I don't mean to hear a preacher preach. I don't mean to touch whatever Christian people touch to make them believe. I want to see a ripped piece of God's clothing. I want to see an actual photo of God. The only form of proof believers have in His existence is their faith in Him.

No one will ever be able to provide materialistic proof of the Dude.

I haven't really said my stance on this topic (and it isn't what my posts may being saying about it). I am a questioning believer. I think i believe in Heaven and Hell and God and all. But I just have millions of questions about the whole thing. I am a realist, as well. When folks say there is proof everywhere of God's existence, I ask for real proof. And I don't want to hear, look around you. So I'm not a complete atheist or anything close to it, but more so "need actual proof before I can believe it fully" type of person. If you get what I'm saying. Later, QD.

I think I understand you and I apologize for the complexity. It is very hard to try to discuss this kind of stuff on a forum. I am just approaching the problem of proof as it is asked for all the time. We ask for something we can touch and grasp but people have done that. Christ was real, he was touched, he ate, we was physical and spiritual and universal all at once. He has a specific purpose in our history and he served that purpose and he left. But people ignore the evidence that is Christ.

Also an understanding of the art of proof in debate would tell us that there is another problem with a request for proof. If believers believe that everything is of God and from God then for any skeptics of non-believers these things are not acceptable as reason to prove his existence because they are ruled out as "having come from that which is to be proved" because anything God creates points to his existence and cannot be used to prove it. I don't believe this, but that is the way that many non-theists or atheists approach the discussion.

This is based off of debate theory. You cannot use anything that has a predisposition that says something is real to prove that thing real...So the Bible would not be sufficient enough to prove that God is real, because it presupposes that God is real. I cannot logically tell anyone otherwise because I presuppose that God is real. In fact, no one who believes in God can prove his existence because presuppositions are always there if you are trying to prove his existence. You would not seek to prove that which you do not believe exists and, you would not seek to prove what you do not believe is there.

My earlier post is about the physical proof. We believe God exists in three forms. The physical, Christ. The spiritual, The Holy Spirit, and the universal, God (The Father (Creator)). The only one that can be argued reasonably through physical means is Christ and *possibly the Father (as presented to Moses, who saw his back on Mount Sinai)

so if you want physical proof of God's existence look at the person of Christ. Look at his life, death, and resurrection. He exists in history, only retards can deny that, so look at his claims and start there. Based on what we have already said, it is going to be hard to determine what is a suitable resource for you to go to, because as people who do not believe investigate many of them become believers, and we have already said that the believer is not a suitable source. So the act of asking for proof for some, only exists to substantiate their non belief because the only proof that is acceptable is the proof that agrees with a single side of the argument.

Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something. There are things that we know are real but cannot touch. History and the study of archaeology and culture is proof of that. We have to be able to look at the compilation of evidence and make reasonable claims. those claims become our faith and they are substantiated in reasons that we have to believe. This is our study of God, our Theology which should be just as grounded in logic and observation as any other science. So belief should never be based on just blind uninformed faith this is where all the misunderstanding and misconceptions come from about the Christian faith.

is that more clear?

BTW...what I am saying to you is strongly demonstrated in posts from d993s. I could introduce him to Christ and he would not believe him. Just as the world did not know Christ when he was here, what make us think that him being here now would be convincing enough for all. this goes to show that lack of proof and evidence is not the problem. It is something in the individual who either cant or refuses to believe or is in denial.

[quickdodge®]

But people ignore the evidence that is Christ.

But how is Christ evidence of God? If Jesus was a miracle worker, maybe he was just born that way. Who's to say that God gave him that "power?"

Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something. There are things that we know are real but cannot touch. History and the study of archaeology and culture is proof of that.

Archaeology is perfect proof of history, dude. You can touch the results of archaeological digs. The pottery, bones and multitudes of other items found can be touched and seen.

So belief should never be based on just blind uninformed faith this is where all the misunderstanding and misconceptions come from about the Christian faith.

Belief in God is strictly faith based. There's no other way to put it or show otherwise. I wish there was.

is that more clear?

Yes, it was.

what make us think that him being here now would be convincing enough for all.

Because, as I stated a minute ago, I don't see Christ as being evidence. There is no proof that he is of God. Later, QD.

[sport_122]

But how is Christ evidence of God? If Jesus was a miracle worker, maybe he was just born that way. Who's to say that God gave him that "power?"

Because, as I stated a minute ago, I don't see Christ as being evidence. There is no proof that he is of God. Later, QD.

The person of Christ would be evidence of God in that at his resurrection he demonstrated his ability to overcome that which the laws of our universe do not suggest that anyone or anything could overcome that was subject to such laws.

The very claims made by Christ that he was the Messiah, God in the flesh, and the connections with the prophecies that he would be the Lord of Lords. There are also claims of his origin existing during the process of creation, but that is going to be too much for this discussion.

Basically, in simple terms, Jesus said, He was God, and the people who didn't believe him or tried to stone him said prove it, and he said okay. I will die and i will be resurrected after three days. And he did.

Now the problem with the stolen body argument is that Christ was witnessed in the flesh by hundreds of people after he was buried and entombed. So to say the body was taken does not counter his physical living presence sitting next to you or speaking to crowds or knocking at your door.

Archaeology is perfect proof of history, dude. You can touch the results of archaeological digs. The pottery, bones and multitudes of other items found can be touched and seen.

Not exactly true. You cannot always touch and feel everything. There are fragments of things that are remaining and there are drawings of things that are remaining. In the case of drawings or paintings, you don't know if something never existed or not. Just because you find a picture or schematic of something doesn't mean it was built. In fact, to prove that archaeology is not exact, just look at the number of archaeologists who will say that human civilizations cannot be traced back more than 7 or 8 thousand years, versus the ones who say, 10, and the onese who say 12 and so on. This shows that even in their fields there is a place of where evidence is not always accepted and does not necessarily lead to conforming views. This is also big with the evolution discussions. There are at least 8 or 9 different versions of evolution out there. One person presents evidence for their differing view and some don't like it and some do, does it mean that person is wrong, nope, it just means their evidence was not suitable for the person who viewed it.

So what to you constitutes good evidence. As said before, if I said well, their are numerous witnesses of events and things that God did, and they wrote their accounts on scroll and passed them down from generation to generation, you would say this is not acceptable, even though we still have several of the original scrolls.

If I point out the writings of first century historians like Josephus and mentioned the claims he made in regards to the followers of Christ and the things that people said on the street about Jesus and that he was seen after his death, you would simply dismiss that.

I could say the very laws as they are demonstrated in our universe are examples of a transcendent God. but you would dismiss that. so what is suitable?

[QUOTEBelief in God is strictly faith based. There's no other way to put it or show otherwise. I wish there was.][/QUOTE]
This argument reversed is a game on semantics because everything is based on faith. You demonstrate faith every day in your life. But it is not BLIND faith if I can tell you that I have much reason to believe my sources and my investigation into this to be validated by every form of study I have ever taken. And I am a firm believer that when discussing something of this importance that if I cannot see God in EVERYTHING then he is not the God that I believe him to be, but I can see him in everything and I can understand (within reason and my human rational) his purpose or place with regards to everything I have ever researched.

another breif example is people who say they think evolution is real. There are some who couldn't even tell you what evolution is, and then there are some who have spent countless hours researching it to come to their conclusions and their beliefs. This is the same on just about any institution I can think of where subjective thought comes into play.

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

funny one.

[d993s]

The person of Christ would be evidence of God in that at his resurrection he demonstrated his ability to overcome that which the laws of our universe do not suggest that anyone or anything could overcome that was subject to such laws.

The very claims made by Christ that he was the Messiah, God in the flesh, and the connections with the prophecies that he would be the Lord of Lords. There are also claims of his origin existing during the process of creation, but that is going to be too much for this discussion.

Basically, in simple terms, Jesus said, He was God, and the people who didn't believe him or tried to stone him said prove it, and he said okay. I will die and i will be resurrected after three days. And he did.

Now the problem with the stolen body argument is that Christ was witnessed in the flesh by hundreds of people after he was buried and entombed. So to say the body was taken does not counter his physical living presence sitting next to you or speaking to crowds or knocking at your door.


Not exactly true. You cannot always touch and feel everything. There are fragments of things that are remaining and there are drawings of things that are remaining. In the case of drawings or paintings, you don't know if something never existed or not. Just because you find a picture or schematic of something doesn't mean it was built. In fact, to prove that archaeology is not exact, just look at the number of archaeologists who will say that human civilizations cannot be traced back more than 7 or 8 thousand years, versus the ones who say, 10, and the onese who say 12 and so on. This shows that even in their fields there is a place of where evidence is not always accepted and does not necessarily lead to conforming views. This is also big with the evolution discussions. There are at least 8 or 9 different versions of evolution out there. One person presents evidence for their differing view and some don't like it and some do, does it mean that person is wrong, nope, it just means their evidence was not suitable for the person who viewed it.

So what to you constitutes good evidence. As said before, if I said well, their are numerous witnesses of events and things that God did, and they wrote their accounts on scroll and passed them down from generation to generation, you would say this is not acceptable, even though we still have several of the original scrolls.

If I point out the writings of first century historians like Josephus and mentioned the claims he made in regards to the followers of Christ and the things that people said on the street about Jesus and that he was seen after his death, you would simply dismiss that.

I could say the very laws as they are demonstrated in our universe are examples of a transcendent God. but you would dismiss that. so what is suitable?


This argument reversed is a game on semantics because everything is based on faith. You demonstrate faith every day in your life. But it is not BLIND faith if I can tell you that I have much reason to believe my sources and my investigation into this to be validated by every form of study I have ever taken. And I am a firm believer that when discussing something of this importance that if I cannot see God in EVERYTHING then he is not the God that I believe him to be, but I can see him in everything and I can understand (within reason and my human rational) his purpose or place with regards to everything I have ever researched.

another breif example is people who say they think evolution is real. There are some who couldn't even tell you what evolution is, and then there are some who have spent countless hours researching it to come to their conclusions and their beliefs. This is the same on just about any institution I can think of where subjective thought comes into play.


funny one.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Come on now, admit it. Gotta have faith.....and you will believe...associate everything positive as a blessing from god, and everything negative as a curse or result of not worshipping god.

This guy has a pretty strong faith: http://news.aol.com/article/father-p...-help%2F496034