Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Jesus Freaks

Sophisto
Posts: 121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
TRUECRISTIAN
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
AtYour behavior is actually sociopathic.
To dismiss life, ANY life, so easily, only shows that you lack almost all compassion, and even have some traits that only mentally challenged sociopaths have.

I'm assuming the lot of you are teenagers, which really makes me wonder just how many of you will grown up to be serial killers.

I surely feel sorry for any pets in your homes.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:28:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Really? what do you mean?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:18:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
The content of these gospels remains hearsay!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:30:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.

I would say that is completely honest.

I don't see any Atheist rejecting the notion that Socrates ever existed. And yet the similarities are striking. It's called the Socratic Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org...

An honest investigation most definitely concludes with an historical person called Jesus.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 1:15:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:18:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 separate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verify his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
The content of these gospels remains hearsay!

You cannot hold the historicity of Jesus to a different standard than any other historical figure. As Mhykiel states below, we accept Socrates when the evidence 'for' is similar to that of Jesus. Socrates is not the only historical figure/event in which we rely on hearsay. It is unfair to demand a higher standard for the man Jesus of Nazareth. We know each Gospel has unique stories, and are corroborative evidence for the life of Jesus. Also, the evidence 'for' is not limited to the Gospels. We have the non-Christian historian Josephus who mentioned Jesus, and the Roman Tacitus made comments about Jesus as well (within 100 years after his death). They did not make any comments to suggest Jesus did not actually exist, and they had nothing to gain from pretending. I could go further, but I will try to keep this as short and sweet as possible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:07:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:18:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
The content of these gospels remains hearsay!

Not really, considering the original copies of them were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion and historians know who authored the four canonical Gospels.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:17:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:07:44 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:18:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
The content of these gospels remains hearsay!

Not really, considering the original copies of them were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion and historians know who authored the four canonical Gospels.

Oh do tell.
Who were they?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 9:42:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:17:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:07:44 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:18:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:10:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:50:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:09:25 PM, Sophisto wrote:
The bar for being recognized as a Jesus Freak is pitifully sub-par. Measuring the likeness of Christ in a believer might as well involve percentages, because an omniscient deity would have no problem doing that feat.

Believing that Jesus actually existed should be sufficient to establish one as a "Jesus freak", assuming one has ever done any honest research on the matter. A lack of evidence where evidence should exist speaks more to a lack of existence, than to a proposed existence.

And those who think they're "following Jesus" are only demonstrating their ignorance of the texts contained in the Bible. None were written by Jesus. None were written by anyone who knew Jesus. None were written during the time the Bible claims Jesus existed on Earth.

I have gone back and forth on this, (I am still researching) but I am willing to concede a historical Jesus actually existed. It is true, no writings have ever been attributed to Jesus. The gospels were not written by people we can prove were alive during the life of Jesus. However, there is at least 7 seperate gospels accounts written within 100 years after his death (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and papyrus egerton 2) . If we consider the historical information contained within them, we can verifiy his existence. This is certainly not adequate to prove Jesus was the son of god, but it is sufficient to prove a man named Jesus was a teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I believe it should be obvious the gospel writers were not seeking to add to the New Testament (as applicable) and the fact that their books ended up in the Bible should not be reason to discount them. Let me qualify all of this by saying: a historical Jesus would be completely different than the legend of Jesus, and I am not advocating Jesus as the son of a god. There is no solid unbiased evidence for that. I look forward to your comments.
The content of these gospels remains hearsay!

Not really, considering the original copies of them were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion and historians know who authored the four canonical Gospels.

Oh do tell.
Who were they?

Fathers of the very early Church named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.