Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

[0311]

Old women up in years, being visited by angels. Genesis. Then in Judges, Samson. There are others, but Jesus, also was concieved by non traditional means. Although we're early into it, we can place a fetus into a woman's uterus. And we do. I'll digress from this topic because it troubles me. But let me say one more thing, Jesus was not normal - he healed the blind by spitting into their eyes, there was something in his saliva. And something horrific was going on during the Resurrection, He metamorphed. Even his Disciples did not recognize him. If a blood sample could have been taken and placed under a microscope, there is no telling what one would see. Like a moth emerging from a cocoon.

 

[3inSlugger]

Old women up in years, being visited by angels. Genesis. Then in Judges, Samson. There are others, but Jesus, also was concieved by non traditional means. Although we're early into it, we can place a fetus into a woman's uterus. And we do. I'll digress from this topic because it troubles me. But let me say one more thing, Jesus was not normal - he healed the blind by spitting into their eyes, there was something in his saliva. And something horrific was going on during the Resurrection, He metamorphed. Even his Disciples did not recognize him. If a blood sample could have been taken and placed under a microscope, there is no telling what one would see. Like a moth emerging from a cocoon.

He would have to have lived and done those things first... This is like speculating whether Bigfoot is circumcised or not....doesn't matter since the existence of Bigfoot or Yeshua isn't established.

You are willing to accept that Yeshua existed, but am unable to accept that it could have been divine miraculous-ness instead of a scientific reason for his Acts?
Suppose we could even establish that the man once lived who has been since known as "Jesus Christ" existed. The proof for his divinity (his being the son of Yahweh)is only based upon the varying word as transcribed in the Gospels (MMLJ). Those Gospels have only been passed down through to us through the filter of 1000s of years of politics, doctrinal differences, paganism, and war. Assuming that the original was the word of god, what we have today surely isn't.

 

[Mike_60]

True that. I have all the faith in the world in science

Sounds to me like you're getting yourself setup to be disappointed someday (no argument intended). The history of science is full of mistakes, cons, opinions, misrepresentations, and on, and on, and on... Putting ones faith in man usually leads to disappointment. And yes, I know the same argument can be made for religion, but if you look at it there is a common denominator between the worst of both.

 

[0311]

He would have to have lived and done those things first... This is like speculating whether Bigfoot is circumcised or not....doesn't matter since the existence of Bigfoot or Yeshua isn't established.

You are willing to accept that Yeshua existed, but am unable to accept that it could have been divine miraculous-ness instead of a scientific reason for his Acts?
Suppose we could even establish that the man once lived who has been since known as "Jesus Christ" existed. The proof for his divinity (his being the son of Yahweh)is only based upon the varying word as transcribed in the Gospels (MMLJ). Those Gospels have only been passed down through to us through the filter of 1000s of years of politics, doctrinal differences, paganism, and war. Assuming that the original was the word of god, what we have today surely isn't.

The fact that Pilate was shouted down by the mob while trying to save Him, lends historical veracity to His existence. The Greeks called the offspring of women and gods demi-gods. But this was different. This was the Son of God. I have never held to the Trinity. I've always believed Jesus was the Son of God, and subordinate to Him. In Old Europe, I would have been burned at the stake for saying this.

 

[3inSlugger]

Sounds to me like you're getting yourself setup to be disappointed someday (no argument intended). The history of science is full of mistakes, cons, opinions, misrepresentations, and on, and on, and on... Putting ones faith in man usually leads to disappointment. And yes, I know the same argument can be made for religion, but if you look at it there is a common denominator between the worst of both.

Are there many scientists running around committing acts of terror? Or preaching to their audience about denying civil liberties to others? Or trying to regulate morality? Or collecting money in the name of God?
Did scientists start wars because of science? Did scientists torture and kill anyone who contradicted them?
Does science discourage dissent, dissection of evidence, or opposition to ideas?

 

[clock152]

so you guys are saying that the 300 AAC black out is not that great?

 

[0311]

Are there many scientists running around committing acts of terror? Or preaching to their audience about denying civil liberties to others? Or trying to regulate morality? Or collecting money in the name of God?
Did scientists start wars because of science? Did scientists torture and kill anyone who contradicted them?
Does science discourage dissent, dissection of evidence, or opposition to ideas?

What science catapulted us to the moon in a Saturn V? Was it Vincent Goddard? No. It was Werner Von Braun. Nazi science, you think our pharmaceutical companies haven't studied what the Krouts were doing? Science does not have a soul.

 

[caojyn]

Was Vincent related to Robert?

 

[3inSlugger]

What science catapulted us to the moon in a Saturn V? Was it Vincent Goddard? No. It was Werner Von Braun. Nazi science, you think our pharmaceutical companies haven't studied what the Krouts were doing? Science does not have a soul.

Werner von Braun, partial developer of the V2 and head of Peenemunde. The Germans, or as you so eloquently put it, the "krauts", did use science as part of their doctrine. You'll also found they used Christianity to quite good effect also. Hitler often reference the "Christ-killers" and used God to incite German loyalty. There were unscrupulous scientists (Christian I might add) that were involved in the Nazi party. Of course, it is human nature to be flawed and imperfect. But at its core, science does not encourage groupthink, obedience in a masochistic relationship with god, or the neutralization of free thought.

 

[caojyn]

Werner von Braun, partial developer of the V2 and head of Peenemunde. The Germans, or as you so eloquently put it, the "krauts", did use science as part of their doctrine. You'll also found they used Christianity to quite good effect also. Hitler often reference the "Christ-killers" and used God to incite German loyalty. There were unscrupulous scientists (Christian I might add) that were involved in the Nazi party. Of course, it is human nature to be flawed and imperfect. But at its core, science does not encourage groupthink, obedience in a masochistic relationship with god, or the neutralization of free thought.

Gott mit uns