neologist wrote:kickycan wrote:The most maddening thing about this whole thing is that no matter what you say, you can't get through the thick armor of willful ignorance that the blind faithful have erected around themselves. So you can't even have a rational discussion. No matter what you say, they always come back with this copout of "I just believe it."
BLIND FAITHFUL: "I believe that an invisible man in the sky is going to come down to earth and take all the good people like me up to the magic world in the sky because some book that was written thousands of years ago tells me it's true."
RATIONAL HUMAN BEING: "But you do realize that the book you are talking about is filled with stories and ideas stolen from other, older pagan religions, and is really just a bunch of horseshit, don't you? It's been proven. You can read about it all right
hereif you want. And that's just the tip of the iceberg."
BLIND FAITHFUL: "I don't care what that says. I believe in the invisible man of MY bible."
It's maddening, I tell ya.
Since you are possessed of such erudition, perhaps you should educate us about all the bible myths and inconsistencies - one at a time, please, my brain is small.
Then I can show you one at a time that you have posted straw men.
How about you start with the ones I posted in that link. Go ahead, twist your brain into pretzels to come to your pre-determined conclusions. I'll enjoy watching it.
Quote:It's bigger than just religion. It's blind faith. And everyday when I see that moron George Bush in his oval office trying to look like he's got a goddam brain in his head while people in Iraq die for his war of choice (and faith, I'm sure), I think, those f*cking blind sheep are the ones who let this a-hole into the highest office in the land. Their stupid blind faith has allowed this to happen.
George Bush only claims he is saved, but I havn't heard him say Jesus once. I didn't vote for him either. As far as I know he's still in the skull and cross bones society and still worships an owl God.
Not for me to judge that tho.
Wanda
Momma Angel wrote:I understand how you feel. I really do. What I don't understand is it seems just because someone is a Christian, they seem to be taking the flack for how everyone feels about the President.
I DIDN'T EVEN VOTE IN THE ELECTION! I had nothing to do with him being elected. There are Christians out here that don't think the same way other Christians do. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.
In the context of a discussion about George Bush and polticians doing God's will, Momma Angel posted this.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:Does that mean that you did not vote?
Well, I don't know how you came to think that might have meant I did not vote. But yes, I did vote. Now, I suppose you want to know who for too?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1522712#1522712
Will the real Momma Angel please stand up.
I thought I'd put this here.
Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?
_____________________
Gonna bring a couple more.
mesquite wrote:Momma Angel wrote:I understand how you feel. I really do. What I don't understand is it seems just because someone is a Christian, they seem to be taking the flack for how everyone feels about the President.
I DIDN'T EVEN VOTE IN THE ELECTION! I had nothing to do with him being elected. There are Christians out here that don't think the same way other Christians do. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.
In the context of a discussion about George Bush and polticians doing God's will, Momma Angel posted this.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:Does that mean that you did not vote?
Well, I don't know how you came to think that might have meant I did not vote. But yes, I did vote. Now, I suppose you want to know who for too?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1522712#1522712
Will the real Momma Angel please stand up.
Mesquite,
Funny, you didn't ask me if I voted for George Bush in that, did you? Did you even stop to wonder what I voted for or how I voted or anything like that at all? I doubt that you did.
I did not vote in the last election. I was in the hospital. However, I did vote in the state elections. I did vote in an early ballot also. However, I did not cast a vote for President of the United States.
Are you having fun, Mesquite? Hmmm. Seems to me, you have gone from having civil discussions with now trying to discredit me? Hey, have at it.
Whatever floats your boat, my friend. :wink:
Okay, my patience for this is gone for the night. Goodnight kiddies, and please...open your damn eyes!!!
Love,
Kicky
Quote:Holy ****, it is maddening talking to people with this cult mentality.
Hahaha! You funny man kickycan.
I never vote.
Could care less actualy. I left this realm recently, kinda.
Wanda
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
______________________
The letters from Pliny are a matter of historical record. Those people weren't fooled by a book.
I do know there were stories very similar to events recorded about, and surrounding, Christ. There is more than one explanation.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same.
_________________________
Lady Lash,
Thank you for these articles. I am enjoying them.
Quote:Okay, my patience for this is gone for the night. Goodnight kiddies, and please...open your damn eyes!!!
I have! And am sooo glad I did too. It's still not too late for you too.
Wanda
I'm the other one wrote:Quote:Okay, my patience for this is gone for the night. Goodnight kiddies, and please...open your damn eyes!!!
I have! And am sooo glad I did too. It's still not too late for you too.
Wanda
This is the disease talking. One day you'll see that. Hopefully.
Okay, now I really am going to bed. Goodnight.
Have a good night, Kickycan.
Wanda,
You go girl!
Green Witch, you are pretty smart.
Wanda
Lash is smart too.
me like Lash.
Wanda
[QUOTE="I
Wanda,
Yes, Green With is very smart. She is also very fair IMO.
Lady Lash is one of a kind. She has been a true blessing to me and I know the Lord feels she is a blessing to Him.
I don't know about all that--but it's a nice sentiment.
We are some silly women.
I've had a blast.
Momma-- You're unique. <LOL>
Lash wrote:I don't know about all that--but it's a nice sentiment.
We are some silly women.
I've had a blast.
Momma-- You're unique. <LOL>
Well, I calls 'em like I sees 'em!
Unique? Me?
Momma Angel wrote:Lash wrote:I don't know about all that--but it's a nice sentiment.
We are some silly women.
I've had a blast.
Momma-- You're unique. <LOL>
Well, I calls 'em like I sees 'em!
Unique? Me?
MoAn,
How do you catch a uniquie rabbit ?
(It's a joke)
