Did Jesus Christ ever existed? If so...

[RobbyIsTehCool]

Its the slippery slope arguement, one that is best gotten rid of as early as possible.

What neuroscience has taught us, and the soul fails to do, is that things are infinitely more complicated regarding das homos. To make a 'small anatomic' change would probably mean you could no longer do math. Since homo probably develops around the same time other sexual issues do, you could'nt abort it, and even with the current rules you cant abort a baby after significant brain development has occured.

Also, chances are Homo is part nature and nurture, meaning it would be basically impossible to actually determine it.

ALSO, too brain scan every being on the level that neuroscience would require to find latent homo in the brain would be prohibitavely expensive.

So, I would'nt worry about that too much.

In fact, if it had a cause in the brain, the arguement supporting homosexuality improves dramatically.


The afterlife stuff.. thats in your camp, I'm afraid.

 

[Oogleman]

After years of thought and personal experiences - no he didn`t exist.

Something did but not god & jesus as we like to portray them.

 

[LarsVenice]

I have to agree with LlerraD.

 

[Circe Infuria]

"Did Jesus Christ ever exist? If so... was he really the son of God?"

I believe He existed/exists and that He was/is the Son of God.

 

[kevin23]

There is actually quite a bit of proof that Jesus lived and performed miracles. Even the Quoran (sp?) views him as a prophet. ( There is an on line version of the Quoran, so you can look it up) Also Josepheus (sp?) a historian of the time makes referrance to him and his works. And of course the New Testament.

Proving anyone is/is not the Son of God would be difficult if not impossible. Everyone is given free choice .
I do believe he lived and was the Son of God. I choose to believe.

 

[Jeimuzu]

I thought I did explain it... I guess i did a poor job

'He' (God Head/Trinity) convinced them, the billions of people, through the Holy Spirit by enlightenment. This illumination gave them discernment to understand the scriptures.

Without the Holy Spirit's intervention the scripitures are as you believe a book of fairy tales.

Is 'Enlightenment' just the sudden knowledge that it's correct? So basically God came into your mind, and made it believe in that? So your belief is that he removed your free will to believe in what you choose?

Since Christianity puts a large emphasis on free will, that's quite hypocritical of him.

 

[eddielee]

I thought I did explain it... I guess i did a poor job

'He' (God Head/Trinity) convinced them, the billions of people, through the Holy Spirit by enlightenment. This illumination gave them discernment to understand the scriptures.

Without the Holy Spirit's intervention the scripitures are as you believe a book of fairy tales.

I have found that to be true in my life. The Holy Spirit gives me enlightenment and understanding. It's like having a light turned on.

 

[SantaCBear]

So your belief is that he removed your free will to believe in what you choose?

Since Christianity puts a large emphasis on free will, that's quite hypocritical of him.

Who said I believed in free will pertaining to this subject?

I dont believe people "Find Jesus" -- He selects His people.

 

[Jeimuzu]

Who said I believed in free will pertaining to this subject?

I dont believe people "Find Jesus" -- He selects His people.

Well, it IS one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, unless all of my secondary school RE teachers were lying.

And also, you believe God creates people, and then ignores most of them, just choosing his favourites?

 

[SantaCBear]

Jacobin, you need to check into the Reformers (Protestant Reformation) and their beliefs. If you're truly interested.

You could start here:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/07/clarifying_some_confusion_abou.php


.

 

[SantaCBear]

Palindromos, Correct! It is called the Hypostatic Union

 

[SantaCBear]

And also, you believe God creates people, and then ignores most of them, just choosing his favourites?

This is a debatable issue and a complicated one.

The Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism debate isnt new. Personally, I ascribe to neither, I'm more of an Amaraldian on this issue.

 

[Shepherd 2]

Yes, I do believe that Jesus was, is and always will be an historical figure, and that he is the Son of God. I am convinced of that. Divinity is a theological concept that is probably as complicated as the concept of resurrection.

There are many fine sources who write on these subjects. I find it interesting reading. Myperception is that some poeple do not enjoy this kind of reading. If you are interested, do some reading. I have spent most of my adult lifetime reading and at times teaching theology, and am currently writing a series of five books on the subject of Spiritual Healing. My convinctions are born of my life experience and my conversion was a dramatic experience for me when I first realized against my own stubborn prior conviction that God either hated me or did not care about me and my family, that God loves me unconditionally. Yes, lazy me, stubborn me, agnostic me, wounded me, loving me, intellectual me, confused me, funny me, Atheist me, angry me, anti-war me, whatever I could put down here including gay me who is now partnered with another gay man. This has given great peace to me in most areas of my life and gives me courage to tell a simple story, my own. I wrote about it in my blogs. It is titled, "My Journey to Faith."
Shep+

 

[Jeimuzu]

This is a debatable issue and a complicated one.

The Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism debate isnt new. Personally, I ascribe to neither, I'm more of an Amaraldian on this issue.

This post reminds me of my brother. He always uses words he knows I won't understand. Keep in mind I'm an eighteen year old who hasn't touched any formal religious education in over three years, nearly failed it even then (probably because I had very little regard for the subject - my in-class entertainment was proving the teachers wrong, and basically I'd 'score points' whenever I got them to use an excuse like "God works in mysterious ways," and stuff like that) and forms all opinions based on that knowledge gained there, extended by my logic and debating abilities.

Therefore, for all I know, you could've just made those words up right now. I'll admit I doubt that; if you made it up, you'd have made the words at least a little easier to pronouce, probably.

Could you offer me a very brief summary of the three? I don't want a history of them, I just want the differences summed up in a couple of lines.

 

[emilarenas]

religion is such a complicated subject .....................there is no end to any discussion about it.

 

[SantaCBear]

Could you offer me a very brief summary of the three? I don't want a history of them, I just want the differences summed up in a couple of lines.

btw-- I mis-spelled Amyraldism

Couple of lines wont do

Those 'big' words are about the order of God's decrees BEFORE creation. They are just theological terms for debate - really dont matter much in every day life.

Again, I'll give you a website:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

Check it out if interested.

 

[Andreus]

religion is such a complicated subject .....................there is no end to any discussion about it.

brother

you just said a mouthfull

 

[rareboy]

The fact is that even if He was made up He exists.

 

[RobbyIsTehCool]

Alright... a few quick point *rubs eyes*...

There is no such thing as a fundamenalist atheist. There is nothing to be fundamentalist about. Antitheists have something to be fundamental about, but you'll find the vast majority of atheists are not one of these. Atheism means 'without god', meaning in a sense we live our lives without worry of a god. You would be shocked by the sheer number of people whom, in our own original definition, are atheists. We have been slandered, however, for one hundred and ten years and during this time the word changed to become 'antigod', and 'agnostic' has sort of replaced our original definition. The primary difference between and atheist and an agnostic you will find, in the modern world, is that atheists find organized religion to be dangerous, while agnostics don't believe it to be a real threat. All of these factions fall under the umbrella of 'secular humanist', a brilliant movement I suspect you agree with at the end of the day.

Now, you will never hear me say there is no god, or no higher order, or such. Theoretical physics are leaving less and less room for God as they go, but its still a science in its infant stages in a sense. Who really knows whats out there?

I personally believe atheists have attempted the wrong mode of attack, especially in recent times. I can point out what I find to be insane about any number of holy books, but this really accomplishes nothing. If I convince someone joining, just for arguements sake, Christianity is insane, I wont have the time to convince them also Buddhism is insane.

I much prefer the infinitely more useful, agnostic, and Socratic arguement.

"I do not know God, and neither do you."

This is all the arguement thats really required to debunk the entire thing, imo, and you will find more and more atheists, and general people, leaning twords it.

The reason they lean twords it is because it is true.



I guess I wrote this just to clarify a bit about what atheists are, because its insane to think that you can judge Christianity without reading the bible, and its insane to think you can judge atheism without understanding what it means.

 

[The_Reaper]

I think it's a question we can never actual answer.

Considering that IF Jesus did exist, and was indeed the Son of God, that would mean there's no earthly remains to prove such.

However, if remains were found, that would prove the Bible wrong and quite possibly cause quite a stir for the rest of us.

Considering the similarity between Hellenistic and other faith mythologies when compared to Jesus' life and acts in the Bible....There's just too many similarities to draw a line to.

The Roman Catholic Church, as proven historically, is quite good at "adopting" other faiths into their traditions in order to ease a shift in the religious region from a "paganistic" faith into the Catholic faith.

Such as making feasts and other "Christian" celebrations on the days of previous pagan celebrations.

Considering this move, it wouldn't be hard to borrow a few "Legends" to make a compelling saviour, now would it?

And of course, the Bible fails to account for almost twenty years of Jesus' life, during which time we have no clue what happens to him. We see him at, I believe it was 11 or 12, and then suddenly he's thirty-some...

So, with the evidence I have at hand...That's a current no from me.