There is no such thing as good versus evil
- Thread starter crimzy
- Start date
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Who's saying that?
Nobody Here....
Comparing the Bible to The Koran.
Who's saying that?
Nobody Here....
Comparing the Bible to The Koran.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
No, Pilate was a real man and he is in the annuals of history during the time he lived and after. There is nothing about the Trial of Jesus recorded in Roman Records.
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
No, Pilate was a real man and he is in the annuals of history during the time he lived and after. There is nothing about the Trial of Jesus recorded in Roman Records.
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
Well according to the bible the events that lead to the crucifixion of Jesus were anything but normal, you don't think any of that would have been recorded or at least mentioned? Wouldn't it have been odd that a man who had such a following would have died in a way that was deemed to have been the lowest way to go.
Under ancient Roman penal practice, crucifixion was also a means of exhibiting the criminal’s low social status. It was the most dishonourable death imaginable, originally reserved for slaves, hence still called "supplicium servile" by Seneca, later extended to provincial freedmen of obscure station ('humiles'). The elite of Roman society (only about 10% of the population) were almost never subject to capital punishments; instead, they were fined or exiled. Josephus
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
Well according to the bible the events that lead to the crucifixion of Jesus were anything but normal, you don't think any of that would have been recorded or at least mentioned? Wouldn't it have been odd that a man who had such a following would have died in a way that was deemed to have been the lowest way to go.
Under ancient Roman penal practice, crucifixion was also a means of exhibiting the criminal’s low social status. It was the most dishonourable death imaginable, originally reserved for slaves, hence still called "supplicium servile" by Seneca, later extended to provincial freedmen of obscure station ('humiles'). The elite of Roman society (only about 10% of the population) were almost never subject to capital punishments; instead, they were fined or exiled. Josephus
earlybird
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
Christianity was a major problem in Rome (to the polythestic Romans) and if they knew that he was the cause then they wouldn't consider him "insignificant." I think.
We are talking about the Roman Empire here. They crucified and killed hundreds of thousands. Do you honestly think they kept records of every one? To the Romans, Jesus was insignificant.
Christianity was a major problem in Rome (to the polythestic Romans) and if they knew that he was the cause then they wouldn't consider him "insignificant." I think.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
Well according to the bible the events that lead to the crucifixion of Jesus were anything but normal, you don't think any of that would have been recorded or at least mentioned? Wouldn't it have been odd that a man who had such a following would have died in a way that was deemed to have been the lowest way to go.
The events leading up only had 2-3 incidents involving the Romans. All the other rabble was among the religious leaders of the time. The Romans didn't want to be bothered by what they deemed as "unimportant local matters".
Well according to the bible the events that lead to the crucifixion of Jesus were anything but normal, you don't think any of that would have been recorded or at least mentioned? Wouldn't it have been odd that a man who had such a following would have died in a way that was deemed to have been the lowest way to go.
The events leading up only had 2-3 incidents involving the Romans. All the other rabble was among the religious leaders of the time. The Romans didn't want to be bothered by what they deemed as "unimportant local matters".
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by earlybird
Christianity was a major problem in Rome (to the polythestic Romans) and if they knew that he was the cause then they wouldn't consider him "insignificant." I think.
At the time of his crucifiction I'm sure the word Jesus was never spoken in Rome. Besides, it wouldn't be Christianity without Christ. So I'd be willing to bet that it was not a problem until after Jesus was dead.
Christianity was a major problem in Rome (to the polythestic Romans) and if they knew that he was the cause then they wouldn't consider him "insignificant." I think.
At the time of his crucifiction I'm sure the word Jesus was never spoken in Rome. Besides, it wouldn't be Christianity without Christ. So I'd be willing to bet that it was not a problem until after Jesus was dead.
clown boy
Active Member
Josh McDowel- Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Josh McDowel was an atheist who set out to disprove the historical validity of the Bible. As a result, he became a Christian and is now one of the leading scholars on the issues you guys are debating at here. If you are REALLY seeking answers to their questions, Mr. McDowell has it in his book. It is exhaustive, detailed and tedious reading, but the facts speak for themselves. Jesus was real, if any history is real. The Bible is trustworthy, if any historical texts are trustworthy. Of course, as Christians, we know this, but Mr. McDowell proves this with Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, side-stepping the typical objections of nonChristians.
Josh McDowel was an atheist who set out to disprove the historical validity of the Bible. As a result, he became a Christian and is now one of the leading scholars on the issues you guys are debating at here. If you are REALLY seeking answers to their questions, Mr. McDowell has it in his book. It is exhaustive, detailed and tedious reading, but the facts speak for themselves. Jesus was real, if any history is real. The Bible is trustworthy, if any historical texts are trustworthy. Of course, as Christians, we know this, but Mr. McDowell proves this with Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, side-stepping the typical objections of nonChristians.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
so when are you guys gonna answer my questions?
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
The events leading up only had 2-3 incidents involving the Romans. All the other rabble was among the religious leaders of the time. The Romans didn't want to be bothered by what they deemed as "unimportant local matters".
What other question?
so when are you guys gonna answer my questions?
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
The events leading up only had 2-3 incidents involving the Romans. All the other rabble was among the religious leaders of the time. The Romans didn't want to be bothered by what they deemed as "unimportant local matters".
What other question?
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Aztec Reef
Rylan & Clownboy You're entitle to your own opinions..but you need help!
here's the Truth!!!
There's an upper force that we live in, we are the Egolistic part of it that is opposite to it. Our Ego has evolved for the last 1000's of years in this planet. At the END of this development you would reach a state(of mind) that we should meet with this other force.(the upper force)
This upper force is totally Good, Caring,Giving ect. ect.. and this Great force created us opposite to itself as "egoists" in order that the ego would develop in us to a point where we can reveal that our Nature is destructive..And that there's nothing worse than it!. And that we would want to brake out of this egocentric state of mind and we would want to become like it(the upper force).
We are ONE soul, One egoistical desire that was created by the upper one as one desire, "the desire to enjoy" And we were shattered by millions of parts called individual souls, and they are what developes this whole process.
We need to correct ourselfs and become like the creator, And that means that we must unify together..
really, In the Egotistical manner which we're devided, we hate one another, And our correction is to be the opposite.. As we should see that our EGO is destructive and we would want to connect back together.
Our choice is wether to evolve one way or the other. In all of the development of Humanity until this time was without any freedom of choice, People were simply carring out what the Ego told them to do.
EGO=DNA
People Now such as myself have the desire that is for something beyond this world, We can't fullfill our selfs with anything that we can find in this world. So i ask my self, Why do I exist? I have the freedom of choice either to continue the path of suffering like it has always been before or I can evolve towards the goal that is calling me.
When Humans reach the Immense destructive Ego of our times, (that's already starting to show) You'll see how bad it is!!
There are two ways to deal with it:
First, To evolve either through the beatings that we receive, which is basiclly how people live their lifes now, they run away from suffering all the time. where do you run to? well, Anywhere! as long as it is away from whatever is hurting you! right? or you could reveal the form/goal by the method of kabala scriptures, And you develop on that in order to attrack to your development..
First way:is the past of evolution and that's called the path of suffering..
Second way:is the "path of Light" The path of Spiritual development..The higher state of mind..the tip of the pyramid, the revelation, the end of the human -kind chapter..
The minute You discover the "wisdom" You'll find your more corrected and more advanced state of mind. Whenever that happends to you, You'll eventually be drawn to more advance stages..
I suggest you read the Kabala, there's many versions..a good one is: The book of Zohar. Do that and you won't need any kind of affliction cause you'll be drawn to more advance stages..
As for scientists, they all read the kabala, even Albert Eistein (who was a jewish) read it..
"The bible is full of Scientific facts that were written before Scientists ever figured them out".
Clownboy, yeah I know, the Ancients figured out all the science (comunicating with the upper force) NOT the bible..nor jesus.
Now, what makes you think that that's the truth?
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Been a long time since I went to Church, but from what I remember, the Bible teaches love and understanding. Love thy neighbor and stuff like that.
Don't recall anything about kill thy neighbor because they don't believe in God.
Just sayin'....
I guess I should have changed God to Mohammed. Does that make it more clear??
That was my answer to the original post about good and evil. Reread the original post and my response might make more sense.
Been a long time since I went to Church, but from what I remember, the Bible teaches love and understanding. Love thy neighbor and stuff like that.
Don't recall anything about kill thy neighbor because they don't believe in God.
Just sayin'....
I guess I should have changed God to Mohammed. Does that make it more clear??
That was my answer to the original post about good and evil. Reread the original post and my response might make more sense.
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Josh McDowel- Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Josh McDowel was an atheist who set out to disprove the historical validity of the Bible. As a result, he became a Christian and is now one of the leading scholars on the issues you guys are debating at here. If you are REALLY seeking answers to their questions, Mr. McDowell has it in his book. It is exhaustive, detailed and tedious reading, but the facts speak for themselves. Jesus was real, if any history is real. The Bible is trustworthy, if any historical texts are trustworthy. Of course, as Christians, we know this, but Mr. McDowell proves this with Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, side-stepping the typical objections of nonChristians.
This means nothing, give me facts! Why is the bible trustworthy? I want writings of Jesus from the TIME HE WAS ON THE EARTH. I want you to come up with one that mentions him in context, not a name you might be able to read a meaning into. We can debate this all day but it boils down to hearsay.
Lets say a murder case from the 1950's was reopened for some reason and you went to the dectective with information you grandfather gave you from 60 years past about a suspect. In court what would this information be? It'd be hearsay, which is what all of the accounts are.
I ask for something simple and no one is able to provide the answer with substance, all you come up with is born again christains who prove that Jesus lived.
Josh McDowel- Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Josh McDowel was an atheist who set out to disprove the historical validity of the Bible. As a result, he became a Christian and is now one of the leading scholars on the issues you guys are debating at here. If you are REALLY seeking answers to their questions, Mr. McDowell has it in his book. It is exhaustive, detailed and tedious reading, but the facts speak for themselves. Jesus was real, if any history is real. The Bible is trustworthy, if any historical texts are trustworthy. Of course, as Christians, we know this, but Mr. McDowell proves this with Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, side-stepping the typical objections of nonChristians.
This means nothing, give me facts! Why is the bible trustworthy? I want writings of Jesus from the TIME HE WAS ON THE EARTH. I want you to come up with one that mentions him in context, not a name you might be able to read a meaning into. We can debate this all day but it boils down to hearsay.
Lets say a murder case from the 1950's was reopened for some reason and you went to the dectective with information you grandfather gave you from 60 years past about a suspect. In court what would this information be? It'd be hearsay, which is what all of the accounts are.
I ask for something simple and no one is able to provide the answer with substance, all you come up with is born again christains who prove that Jesus lived.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
This means nothing, give me facts! Why is the bible trustworthy? I want writings of Jesus from the TIME HE WAS ON THE EARTH. I want you to come up with one that mentions him in context, not a name you might be able to read a meaning into. We can debate this all day but it boils down to hearsay.
Lets say a murder case from the 1950's was reopened for some reason and you went to the dectective with information you grandfather gave you from 60 years past about a suspect. In court what would this information be? It'd be hearsay, which is what all of the accounts are.
I ask for something simple and no one is able to provide the answer with substance, all you come up with is born again christains who prove that Jesus lived.
Have you read The Bible??? The new testament is all about Jesus, written by the folks who were there with him while he was on the earth.
Or are you of a sort who does not believe in the New Testament?? Hmmmm. I wonder??
This means nothing, give me facts! Why is the bible trustworthy? I want writings of Jesus from the TIME HE WAS ON THE EARTH. I want you to come up with one that mentions him in context, not a name you might be able to read a meaning into. We can debate this all day but it boils down to hearsay.
Lets say a murder case from the 1950's was reopened for some reason and you went to the dectective with information you grandfather gave you from 60 years past about a suspect. In court what would this information be? It'd be hearsay, which is what all of the accounts are.
I ask for something simple and no one is able to provide the answer with substance, all you come up with is born again christains who prove that Jesus lived.
Have you read The Bible??? The new testament is all about Jesus, written by the folks who were there with him while he was on the earth.
Or are you of a sort who does not believe in the New Testament?? Hmmmm. I wonder??