Protestantism

» pink101 - Uh, Jesus?

In response to The Fruit of The Tree posted by Brother_Jones:
.
Other than John Spong, have you ever heard anyone that has your type of beliefs and claims some sort of Christianity or some sort of relationship with God? Anyone?
.
Thankfully, I'm not bound in my relationships with God by what others say, do, or think. Maybe you are?
.
But, to answer your question. Uh, Jesus?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Hardly Worth A Reply

In response to Hardly Worth A Reply posted by pink101:

.
I won't be surprised if your comments go completely ignored by Migisi--they are so contrived up in your own mind.
.
You read my mind.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - by the way, Mig

In response to by the way, Mig posted by _Boanerges_:

.
You want my critique? I enjoyed the music, but the video is disturbing. Far more dark and frightening is their music video "Fear of a Blank Planet". And I don't much like the lyrics to "Halo". The lyrics, music, and video I like most? "Lazarus".

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Jesus' life

In response to So prove it's not a hoax posted by Migisi:

Migisi,

You are shifting the standard for proof around. You want SECULAR proof for Jesus' life, you say. Does this mean that he EXISTED - that he was a living, historical figure? If so, that's EASY! And I've already done it several times.

Yet, when I provide the evidence, you then shift and adjust the standard to prove his miracles and/or other supernatural aspects of his life. At THAT point, the evidence comes from sources who BELIEVED in him. Thus, it ceases to be "secular" evidence. And understandably so.

So, bottom line....stop shifting around in your demands and standards here. If you want evidence that Jesus simply lived (whoever or whatever he was), then that's been provided.

Go back to my article "Proving Jesus." If you want more than that, then you have the Gospels.

» pink101 - Jesus' life

In response to Jesus' life posted by BrianTubbs:
.
One of the things the Bible has Jesus saying boils down to this:
.
"I stand at the door of your being and knock. If you open that door and let me in, we will sit down together and sup."
.
All the falderow of whether he existed as an actual being or not set aside, what does it mean to sup?
.
Is it the important thing in Christianity that Jesus existed at some time in history or is the offer in the above statement the operative value? And, if it is, what affect does supping with a person have on one's understandings?
.
Do you SUPpose you know the answers?
.

.
Be kind.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Jesus' life

In response to Jesus' life posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You are shifting the standard for proof around.
.
No I'm not. I've been consistent. As I see it, YOU are shifting the focus away from my original question.
.
Does this mean that he EXISTED - that he was a living, historical figure? If so, that's EASY! And I've already done it several times.
.
No, you haven't. We've already discussed what you've presented as 'secular evidence' in the Suetonius and Pliny threads (and elsewhere), and I've provided material refuting it. And, you've stated more than once in several threads that there is NO secular evidence of Jesus' life. Do I need to quote you?
.
Yet, when I provide the evidence, you then shift and adjust the standard to prove his miracles and/or other supernatural aspects of his life.
.
In this thread, I refer you to post #1, where I asked you: "Can you list what you've studied and know about Jesus' life, and provide some secular evidence to support it?" I specifically wrote 'life'. If you want to, we could expand that to include his miracles and the supernatural aspects since - according to the Gospels and Epistles - they indeed were important parts of his 'life', and integral to Christianity.
.
At THAT point, the evidence comes from sources who BELIEVED in him. Thus, it ceases to be "secular" evidence. And understandably so.
.
Correct. Based on this, the Gospels and Epistles wouldn't qualify as secular evidence.
.
Go back to my article "Proving Jesus." If you want more than that, then you have the Gospels.
.
I've read the article. The Gospels wouldn't qualify as secular evidence, as you've said above: ("At THAT point, the evidence comes from sources who BELIEVED in him. Thus, it ceases to be "secular" evidence. And understandably so.")

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - by the way, Mig

In response to by the way, Mig posted by Migisi:

I enjoyed the music, but the video is disturbing.

yeah, it really is.. but, glad you liked Porcupine Tree.. for some reason, I kinda thought you might!...

Far more dark and frightening is their music video "Fear of a Blank Planet". And I don't much like the lyrics to "Halo". The lyrics, music, and video I like most? "Lazarus".

agree.....

Thanks!....... for listening, and responding....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - evidence for Jesus

In response to Jesus' life posted by Migisi:

Migisi,

The article "Proving Jesus" provides a basic overview of the evidence for Jesus' life and for the presence of his followers in the first and second centuries.

The truth is, though, that I'm really scratching my head in all this. Arguing the existence of Jesus is like arguing the existence of Alexander the Great. (We actually have more evidence of Jesus than for Alexander, yet I don't hear you questioning Alexander's reality).

The whole "Jesus myth" dogma that you promulgate has been thoroughly rejected by historians, liberal and conservative alike.

Read the following article. It answers pretty much all the points you've raised.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesu...

It's too long to paste here. But it's pretty thorough. I recommend you and anyone else who harbors the least bit of doubt about Jesus' existence read it.

» Migisi - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by BrianTubbs:
.
...is like arguing the existence of Alexander the Great. I don't hear you questioning Alexander's reality.
.
Start a new thread. I'm game. (wink and )
.
.."Jesus myth" dogma ... thoroughly rejected by historians, liberal and conservative alike.
.
Sure... ~Christian~ liberal and conservative historians. However, secular historians in Jesus' time didn't even mention him existing. If he did exist, was such a big influence on society, and such a controversial figure (as the Gospels claim), that's baffling.
.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:
.
I read the article Brian offered, and was seriously contemplating JP Holding's convincing POV. But then he ruined it with his nasty (yet typical) conclusion. Heavy sigh.
.
Quoting from "Conclusion: What To Do with this Information" from the link Brian posted http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesu... :
.
"The question remains: What on earth could possess otherwise intelligent and educated people to be so uncritical in their beliefs regarding the existence of Jesus? Here is my advice in the matter: If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone. It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more."
.
Well, I guess that's that. Anyone who's questioned the existence of Jesus is nothing more than arrogant, egotistical, fallen and sinful. Yeah, okay. What other conclusion can one expect from a Christian apologetics ministry.

-- posted by Migisi