Historical Jesus?
k
http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
--
k
aka PiltdownWoman aka Liberal Puke
Founder of the Society for the Prevention of Snake Exploition in Religion.
Stop Serpent and Snake Sects
S.S.S.S
226-24067-378
www.skepticult.org
georgann
> If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
georgann wrote:
Why do ya think they're called atheists?
c.c.
georgann
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The whole movement is running
neck-and-neck with the Dixiecrats
for pride of place at the Right
side of the party. The only real
difference is that the Dixiecrats
had their ideology before the
Republicans jumped to the Right
and the New Democrats stole theirs
from the Republicans who stole
them from the Dixiecrats (for three
senators and a congressman to
be named later).
-- Jim (you said a mouth full) Gray
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
k
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390CA82B...@mindspring.com...
> k wrote:
> > If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> > http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> Why do ya think they're called atheists?
Georgann...which part do you dispute? Take issue with? Seriously.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying let's look at it.
As a Christian, what's your take on it?
k
Maria Montgomery
Josephus is really one of the best sources but he sort of "sold out" to the
Roman Empire. Untilmately it just comes down to a matter of faith and I can
handle either side as long as someone doesn't ram it down my throat.
MM
"k" <joo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%R0P4.15697$qF4.2...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> If anyone is interested...opinions please.
>
> http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
>
georgann
> > k wrote:
> > > If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> > > http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
> > georgann wrote:
> > Why do ya think they're called atheists?
k wrote:
> Georgann...which part do you dispute? Take issue with? Seriously.
> I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying let's look at it.
> As a Christian, what's your take on it?
georgann wrote:
Kelly do you **really** want my take on specific parts of it? You have
to know that as a believer (not just a CINO - Christian in name only) I
not only say that Jesus existed but that He is the one and only God
incarnate.
Not maybe God. Not one of many gods. Not a sorta God or parta God. All
God. That's the definition of a Christian. I didn't "think" my way into
it. I fell/jumped into it.
I didn't do seventeen tons of cites/sites and masters programs to see
it. I just know it. Christianity isn't about "WHAT" you believe as much
as who you say Jesus is. Without that you have nothing. No conversation.
No impressive documentation and references. Nothing.
So anything I would say about an atheists view of Christ is pointless.
k
--
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390CA82B...@mindspring.com...
> k wrote:
> > If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> > http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> Why do ya think they're called atheists?
Ron wanted me to let you know that not all atheists disbelieve in the
historical Jesus.
k
aka PiltdownWoman aka Liberal Puke
Founder of the Society for the Prevention of Snake Exploition in Religion.
Stop Serpent and Snake Sects
S.S.S.S
226-24067-378
www.skepticult.org
>
Poobah
>If anyone is interested...opinions please.
>
>http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
>
>--
>
I'll call your link and raise you.
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/sess16/smith_hj.htm
Like they say, "with faith, no proof is required. without it, no proof is
sufficient."
I don't care what others believe so long as they don't try to enlist me in
their cult, or proclaim my damnation if I differ.
k
"Poobah" <stand...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:390ce866...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 20:39:23 GMT, "k" <joo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> >
> >http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
> >
> >--
> >
>
> I'll call your link and raise you.
> http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/sess16/smith_hj.htm
Guess I'll have to fold. Good read there.
k
aka PiltdownWoman aka Liberal Puke
Founder of the Society for the Prevention of Snake Exploition in Religion.
Stop Serpent and Snake Sects
S.S.S.S
226-24067-378
www.skepticult.org
>
k
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390CE267...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> > > k wrote:
> > > > If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> > > > http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
>
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > Why do ya think they're called atheists?
>
> k wrote:
> > Georgann...which part do you dispute? Take issue with? Seriously.
> > I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying let's look at it.
> > As a Christian, what's your take on it?
>
> georgann wrote:
> Kelly do you **really** want my take on specific parts of it? You have
> to know that as a believer (not just a CINO - Christian in name only) I
> not only say that Jesus existed but that He is the one and only God
> incarnate.
Without the existence of Jesus, you have no religion. Is historical
evidence even a wee itty bit important?
>
> Not maybe God. Not one of many gods. Not a sorta God or parta God. All
> God. That's the definition of a Christian. I didn't "think" my way into
> it. I fell/jumped into it.
But, do you stop listening and learning when the lightning bolt hits? After
all, you still have the power to reject whatever you want.
You don't have to wear blinders do you?
>
> I didn't do seventeen tons of cites/sites and masters programs to see
> it. I just know it. Christianity isn't about "WHAT" you believe as much
> as who you say Jesus is. Without that you have nothing. No conversation.
YOU can always have conversation....or _I_ can.
> No impressive documentation and references. Nothing.
I merely asked for an opinion onthe piece. Surely you don't think it's is
sacreligious to simply read about it. Do you?
>
> So anything I would say about an atheists view of Christ is pointless.
What if it isn't just a view? What if there are conflicts? Your faith can
stand up to a few indescrepencies....right?
georgann
> > > > k wrote:
> > > > > If anyone is interested...opinions please.
> > > > > http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
> > > > georgann wrote:
> > > > Why do ya think they're called atheists?
> > k wrote:
> > > Georgann...which part do you dispute? Take issue with? Seriously.
> > > I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying let's look at it.
> > > As a Christian, what's your take on it?
> > georgann wrote:
> > Kelly do you **really** want my take on specific parts of it? You have
> > to know that as a believer (not just a CINO - Christian in name only) I
> > not only say that Jesus existed but that He is the one and only God
> > incarnate.
k wrote:
> Without the existence of Jesus, you have no religion. Is historical
> evidence even a wee itty bit important?
georgann wrote:
Kel, there's no possible way to "discuss" Jesus "existance" with a
believer. One "believes" Jesus is who He is, or they don't. The
historical "evidence" is positively irrelivant --- not because it isn't
important -- but because it isn't necessary. Its like saying you can't
prove the sky is really blue because not everyone sees colors. Doesn't work.
> > Not maybe God. Not one of many gods. Not a sorta God or parta God. All
> > God. That's the definition of a Christian. I didn't "think" my way into
> > it. I fell/jumped into it.
k wrote:
> But, do you stop listening and learning when the lightning bolt hits? After
> all, you still have the power to reject whatever you want.
> You don't have to wear blinders do you?
georgann wrote:
I never stopped listening and learning once I believed. But I did stop
asking why is UP UP and DOWN DOWN. Some things become as essential to
your own being as air. Blinders are for people who think theres
something to be avoided. Believers don't have to avoid things. But they
can choose not to mess with them. Its like telling someone "Go ahead.
Crack won't hurt you. You'll like it. It feels good." That may be true,
but you'd have to be an idiot to try it when you know its harmful.
Belief in Christ is not a thing you do. It inculcates into who you are.
> > I didn't do seventeen tons of cites/sites and masters programs to see
> > it. I just know it. Christianity isn't about "WHAT" you believe as much
> > as who you say Jesus is. Without that you have nothing. No conversation.
k wrote:
> YOU can always have conversation....or _I_ can.
georgann wrote:
Well we can talk about anything I suppose. But I don't know anybody that
wallows around in every subject known to man willy nilly. Its not only
counterproductive but it gets boring. You pick your shots in this life.
My time is too precious to me to fritter it away on going around in
circles. I'm a pretty goal oriented person.
> > No impressive documentation and references. Nothing.
k wrote:
> I merely asked for an opinion onthe piece. Surely you don't think it's is
> sacreligious to simply read about it. Do you?
georgann wrote:
Nothing about what they said in the article is sacrilegious. It just
bores me. People who do know Christ, I will listen to. They have
something to say about the subject. People who don't know Him have
nothing to bring to the party. Sorry.
> > So anything I would say about an atheists view of Christ is pointless.
k wrote:
> What if it isn't just a view? What if there are conflicts? Your faith can
> stand up to a few indescrepencies....right?
georgann wrote:
I can fall on the floor and wallow in all kinds of things too. I don't
have that kind of time. And when you are certain of something isn't it
pretty boring to just keep rattling the cage all the time. Like I said.
You pick your shots and fill your hours in this life the way you want. I
ultimately get bored going over the same arguments about religion with
folks that don't want to read off the same page.
k
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390D745B...@mindspring.com...
Georgann, did you really say the above? Didn't we just finish going in some
very dizzying circles concerning math and God?
Why is this any different, or have you changed the way you look at things?
I would think that anyone who takes the time to look at the bible codes
would take a few minutes to look at some alledged errors in the
documentation of Jesus.
Did I dream all that other stuff?
I'm not trying to pick at you...I really wanted your take on it.
k
aka PiltdownWoman aka Liberal Puke
Founder of the Society for the Prevention of Snake Exploition in Religion.
Stop Serpent and Snake Sects
S.S.S.S
226-24067-378
www.skepticult.org
>
georgann
> > Well we can talk about anything I suppose. But I don't know anybody that
> > wallows around in every subject known to man willy nilly. Its not only
> > counterproductive but it gets boring. You pick your shots in this life.
> > My time is too precious to me to fritter it away on going around in
> > circles. I'm a pretty goal oriented person.
k wrote:
> Georgann, did you really say the above? Didn't we just finish going in some
> very dizzying circles concerning math and God?
> Why is this any different, or have you changed the way you look at things?
> I would think that anyone who takes the time to look at the bible codes
> would take a few minutes to look at some alledged errors in the
> documentation of Jesus.
> Did I dream all that other stuff?
> I'm not trying to pick at you...I really wanted your take on it.
> k
georgann wrote:
There's a HUGE difference in "dizzying circles" with Christ at the
center and just traveling around and around. I can dizzy with the best
of em. But unless Christ is the anchor it doesn't jive with me. Used to!
But not anymore. Sorry. Now if you could show me something that is
trying to focus ON Jesus and not away from Him then I'd probably get
wild with excitement.
k
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390D9EF3...@mindspring.com...
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > Well we can talk about anything I suppose. But I don't know anybody
that
> > > wallows around in every subject known to man willy nilly. Its not only
> > > counterproductive but it gets boring. You pick your shots in this
life.
> > > My time is too precious to me to fritter it away on going around in
> > > circles. I'm a pretty goal oriented person.
>
> k wrote:
> > Georgann, did you really say the above? Didn't we just finish going in
some
> > very dizzying circles concerning math and God?
> > Why is this any different, or have you changed the way you look at
things?
> > I would think that anyone who takes the time to look at the bible codes
> > would take a few minutes to look at some alledged errors in the
> > documentation of Jesus.
> > Did I dream all that other stuff?
> > I'm not trying to pick at you...I really wanted your take on it.
> > k
>
> georgann wrote:
> There's a HUGE difference in "dizzying circles" with Christ at the
> center and just traveling around and around. I can dizzy with the best
> of em. But unless Christ is the anchor it doesn't jive with me. Used to!
> But not anymore. Sorry. Now if you could show me something that is
> trying to focus ON Jesus and not away from Him then I'd probably get
> wild with excitement.
Please say that clearer. I've only had a gallon of caffeine today and I'm
majorly confused.
Are you saying that you refuse to debate any reference that you don't
already agree with?
k
saw American Beauty last night...2nd time. IT'S SO AWESOME!
georgann
> > georgann wrote:
> > There's a HUGE difference in "dizzying circles" with Christ at the
> > center and just traveling around and around. I can dizzy with the best
> > of em. But unless Christ is the anchor it doesn't jive with me. Used to!
> > But not anymore. Sorry. Now if you could show me something that is
> > trying to focus ON Jesus and not away from Him then I'd probably get
> > wild with excitement.
k wrote:
> Please say that clearer. I've only had a gallon of caffeine today and I'm
> majorly confused.
> Are you saying that you refuse to debate any reference that you don't
> already agree with?
georgann wrote:
No I'm not saying I refuse to "debate anything I don't already agree
with". But my belief in Christ is not an "opinion" Kelly. Its part of
who I am. Its not "debatable" like that article on atheism is. I could
go on for hours on my views of it but what for. We already know I don't
agree the "premise" so what's the point of burrowing in the "details".
The one thing I know about in the work I do is not to spend any time on
high polish when you haven't finished making the basic structure.
Framework baby, framework.
c.c.
georgann
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Opinions which anyone could find offensive
in any way should be suppressed.
--Rosebud Genitals 4/29/00
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
k
--
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390DB4CE...@mindspring.com...
>
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > There's a HUGE difference in "dizzying circles" with Christ at the
> > > center and just traveling around and around. I can dizzy with the best
> > > of em. But unless Christ is the anchor it doesn't jive with me. Used
to!
> > > But not anymore. Sorry. Now if you could show me something that is
> > > trying to focus ON Jesus and not away from Him then I'd probably get
> > > wild with excitement.
>
> k wrote:
> > Please say that clearer. I've only had a gallon of caffeine today and
I'm
> > majorly confused.
> > Are you saying that you refuse to debate any reference that you don't
> > already agree with?
>
> georgann wrote:
> No I'm not saying I refuse to "debate anything I don't already agree
> with". But my belief in Christ is not an "opinion" Kelly.
But we're not talking opinion here, we're talking about historical accuracy.
Most believers are interested in that.
Its part of
> who I am. Its not "debatable" like that article on atheism is.
It was written by atheists, but it's actually an article on alledged
discrepanices (sp?) within the bible and other documents that were used to
established Jesus' existence.
I could
> go on for hours on my views of it but what for. We already know I don't
> agree the "premise" so what's the point of burrowing in the "details".
OK...this is where I get stumped. How can details of a religion not be
important?
I used to believe that too...but it is.
We're talking about a belief that you devote your entire life to. That is
your identity. How can you not want to know everything you can?
>
> The one thing I know about in the work I do is not to spend any time on
> high polish when you haven't finished making the basic structure.
I think in order to make the basic structure, the foundation, it has to be
stable. How can it be stable when it's built on wrong information?
(possibly)
>
> Framework baby, framework.
I understand your point here. I don't say I completely agree with the
article and it's by no means the first of it's kind. There are actually
better ones and plenty to back up Jesus' existence.
I'm just wondering what the Christian answer for this is....actually your
answer. You seem to like to argue details if they fit your belief. Do you
throw out what doesn't?
How do you reconcile it all?
Finally, wouldn't a perfect God, make this more understandable?
k
who's spell check isn't working for some reason.
georgann
k wrote:
> But we're not talking opinion here, we're talking about historical accuracy.
> Most believers are interested in that.
georgann:
Sure its interesting. But its not going to lead anywhere. For every
point one side makes the other makes the opposite. I personally find the
"accuracy" arguments very tedious. I know whole groups of people in all
sorts of disciplines make their livings wallowing in details. Create and
find more details. We're not all the same. I'm a "icon" maker. I
simplify things. Boil em down. Shorten em. Trim off the fat. Get to the
gist of things. At least that's the "purist" in me. (Not that I
succeed.) At my very best I can design a mean corporate logo. But I
loath filling up pages of brochures with "design elements". Abhorrent to me.
> Its part of
> > who I am. Its not "debatable" like that article on atheism is.
k wrote:
> It was written by atheists, but it's actually an article on alledged
> discrepanices (sp?) within the bible and other documents that were used to
> established Jesus' existence.
gc:
I know some people find the "historical" Jesus essential to belief. But
for me its only incidental to the "facts". What if nobody gets it right?
What if many of the "details" never got caught? Then what? You think
people who swear they have "met" Jesus personally, in real life, are
gonna believe what somebody says about whether or not He lived, died and
was resurrected? If HE tells you its true, you don't need to hear it
again.
> I could
> > go on for hours on my views of it but what for. We already know I don't
> > agree the "premise" so what's the point of burrowing in the "details".
k wrote:
> OK...this is where I get stumped. How can details of a religion not be
> important?
> I used to believe that too...but it is.
> We're talking about a belief that you devote your entire life to. That is
> your identity. How can you not want to know everything you can?
gc:
I can see how that looks opposite of what it should be. But think of it
more like "first things first". If you haven't got the "first" part then
all the rest is OFF. Sort of like a fork in the road. Besides, to me the
details that are relevant to one person are not gonna be that important
to somebody else, IMO. Details are just so much confusion. They are
seductive in making us think we can "think" our way to God. He can and
does show some pretty cool stuff to people, but you can't get there on
your own. His perspective is perfect. Ours isn't.
> > The one thing I know about in the work I do is not to spend any time on
> > high polish when you haven't finished making the basic structure.
k wrote:
> I think in order to make the basic structure, the foundation, it has to be
> stable. How can it be stable when it's built on wrong information?
> (possibly)
> > Framework baby, framework.
k wrote:
> I understand your point here. I don't say I completely agree with the
> article and it's by no means the first of it's kind. There are actually
> better ones and plenty to back up Jesus' existence.
> I'm just wondering what the Christian answer for this is....actually your
> answer. You seem to like to argue details if they fit your belief. Do you
> throw out what doesn't?
> How do you reconcile it all?
> Finally, wouldn't a perfect God, make this more understandable?
> k
> who's spell check isn't working for some reason.
georgann wrote:
I don't throw out anything [detail] "that doesn't fit" cause I just
don't get bogged down in details. If you "keep your eyes upon Jesus" all
the else makes sense. If you start spinning around grabbing all the
options, you just get dizzy.
And I don't really know why God didn't make it obvious. But it isn't. I
think its cause He wants us to make a commitment to Him before He'll
make a commitment to us. Sort of like then we can never say it wasn't voluntary.