How to really celebrate Easter...

[CMPunk]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/0...philippines_dc

[FireFly]

I think I prefer my method... drinking beer at work, going home to my family, eating chocolate and playing with my brother's Wii... But hey. Whatever floats your boat.

[CMPunk]

Awww getting crucified sounds like fun

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Awww getting crucified sounds like fun

The thing that gets me about it is that, in the Bible, the guy beside Jesus asked to be cruxified upside down because he wasn't worthy of the same treatment as the Son of God. Are these people saying they are????

[SpitFire40]

I having a hearty Rabbit Stew.

[Deelow]

I like the part about playing "Stairway To Heaven" before the nails are driven.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The thing that gets me about it is that, in the Bible, the guy beside Jesus asked to be cruxified upside down because he wasn't worthy of the same treatment as the Son of God. Are these people saying they are????

Tradition says that when Peter was martyred he made this request to be hung upside down and it was supposedly granted. I don't believe either of the thieves made make mention of this in the Bible.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Mutilation is now a religious experience? I'm pretty sure we have clinics here in Canada that treat people who feel they must harm themselves because they feel that they are not worthy.

Can't they just sit on a church pew for 2 hours like normal people?

[TurnedTheCorner]

I thought the resurrection was celebrated, not the crucifixtion. Wacky organized religion.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I thought the resurrection was celebrated, not the crucifixtion. Wacky organized religion.

They both are.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think I prefer my method...playing with my brother's Wii... Whatever floats your boat.

Ha, a little editing makes it sound funny...

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Tradition says that when Peter was martyred he made this request to be hung upside down and it was supposedly granted. I don't believe either of the thieves made make mention of this in the Bible.

Meh, like it matters. Sounds like quibbling over the colour of the Tooth Fairy's hair. Who cares since it isn't real anyways?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Meh, like it matters. Sounds like quibbling over the colour of the Tooth Fairy's hair. Who cares since it isn't real anyways?

The written traditions concerning the lives of the Apostles are found in ancient libraries kept by various churches or monasteries. These writings can be dated to be contemporary with the events written about thanks to the specific use of language in the first century. Much the same way one could identify a 20Th century piece of English literature as not possibly belonging to the 16th century. Although these accounts could be embellished they do offer independent accounts of the history which should be considered.

If you choose to disregard all written history that may be biased you must be wholly ignorant of all history before television and radio. Good thing CBC came along!

The New Testament contains 27 letters or books which all confirm the existence of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. There was at least 7 different authors who give independent witness and spoke of hundreds of other eye witnesses. The first 4 books or letters give specific information about Jesus' short ministry and resurrection. There are many historical events and figures we take for granted with far less of a witness.

Children believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus because they really want to think these magical creatures exist to bring them good things.

People don't believe in Jesus Christ because if they did then they would have to do something about Him. Maybe change their behavior or lifestyle. Maybe read there Bible. In any event you can't change the fact that Jesus existed 2000 years ago or is alive today any more than a child can make the tooth fairy real.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The written traditions concerning the lives of the Apostles are found in ancient libraries kept by various churches or monasteries. These writings can be dated to be contemporary with the events written about thanks to the specific use of language in the first century. Much the same way one could identify a 20Th century piece of English literature as not possibly belonging to the 16th century. Although these accounts could be embellished they do offer independent accounts of the history which should be considered.

If you choose to disregard all written history that may be biased you must be wholly ignorant of all history before television and radio. Good thing CBC came along!

The New Testament contains 27 letters or books which all confirm the existence of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. There was at least 7 different authors who give independent witness and spoke of hundreds of other eye witnesses. The first 4 books or letters give specific information about Jesus' short ministry and resurrection. There are many historical events and figures we take for granted with far less of a witness.

Children believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus because they really want to think these magical creatures exist to bring them good things.

People don't believe in Jesus Christ because if they did then they would have to do something about Him. Maybe change their behavior or lifestyle. Maybe read there Bible. In any event you can't change the fact that Jesus existed 2000 years ago or is alive today any more than a child can make the tooth fairy real.

The problem with the bible is, that all Roman, Egyptian and Persian historians from that time, do not make references to the things that happened in the New Testament; their histories contain very little if anything at all about a man named Jesus. Likely there was a man who was a disciple of John the Baptist who created the legend of a man named Jesus when executed by the Romans.

The Bible, both new and old, are religious texts, and are not considered by most historians as having much value as an accurate historical document.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

The problem with the bible is, that all Roman, Egyptian and Persian historians from that time, do not make references to the things that happened in the New Testament; their histories contain very little if anything at all about a man named Jesus. Likely there was a man who was a disciple of John the Baptist who created the legend of a man named Jesus when executed by the Romans.

The Bible, both new and old, are religious texts, and are not considered by most historians as having much value as an accurate historical document.

Why would Egyptian and Persian historians even know about Jesus unless they spent time in Palestine? It's really hard to get into history books without having killed a lot of people. As for the miracles; why would they report on things they never seen and probably didn't believe.

Legends generally are written long after the subject has died. They rely on few or no eye witnesses being left to refute their claims. The gnostic gospels are examples of legends being applied to Jesus Christ. Why do you suppose it takes centuries for a catholic to be elevated to sainthood? It's a lot easier to claim someone lived a sinless life and performed miracles if everyone that knew him is long dead.

The letters that comprise the New Testament were contemporary with the subject. They speak of other eye witnesses as well who at the time of the writings were alive and able to confirm or deny the writer's claims. We also have written accounts of how many of these eye witnesses died. Often horrifically and yet remained true to their testimony. For caparison: there were only 12 men who said they seen the golden tablets that Joseph Smith said he was led to and translated into the book of Mormon. Of those twelve three recanted their testimony(it might of been 4) . None of these had to endure torture to make such confessions.

Lastly, the bible has proven to be historically accurate. Its description of geography and events have been right on the money. The Bible has also been held to a higher standard of criticism then other historical documents. Even with its remarkable track record it is still presumed to be inaccurate when another outside source isn't found to collaborate its claim.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lastly, the bible has proven to be historically accurate. Its description of geography and events have been right on the money. The Bible has also been held to a higher standard of criticism then other historical documents. Even with its remarkable track record it is still presumed to be inaccurate when another outside source isn't found to collaborate its claim.

No. No it's not. No one uses the bible as history record except Christians. The bible has not been "on the money" with it's accounts of the past. Remember exodus? You think they would have found some evidence of thousands of people wandering the desert. But they haven't found any that would confirm this part of the bible. No creditable scientist uses the bible as fact for the past. You are mistaken.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

No. No it's not. No one uses the bible as history record except Christians. The bible has not been "on the money" with it's accounts of the past. Remember exodus? You think they would have found some evidence of thousands of people wandering the desert. But they haven't found any that would confirm this part of the bible. No creditable scientist uses the bible as fact for the past. You are mistaken.

Firstly, we are talking primarily about the New Testament in this discussion
here: Namely the historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, you'll be hard pressed to find historical evidence of any Nomadic tribe who lived 3000+ years ago. Now compound that by the fact that they only were there by the biblical account 40 years. King David who lived after this period were thought by historians to be a myth until someone found an old stone tablet that mentioned him. And remember King David wasn't nomadic.

Not being able to prove something by an outside source isn't proof that the narrative is false.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Firstly, we are talking primarily about the New Testament in this discussion
here: Namely the historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ.

So the bible was right on the money with what then? Jesus's miracles? Might have a hard time proving that one. That he existed? What exactly was the bible right on the money with in terms of Jesus? You made it sound like there was several things that it was correct on. The bible says that he existed, but in reality there isn't a lot of real evidence that he existed. So it's not really fair to say that the bible was right on the money.

Secondly, you'll be hard pressed to find historical evidence of any Nomadic tribe who lived 3000+ years ago. Now compound that by the fact that they only were there by the biblical account 40 years. King David who lived after this period were thought by historians to be a myth until someone found an old stone tablet that mentioned him. And remember King David wasn't nomadic.

Archaeologists dig up items of the past all the time. They know about people from over 6000 years ago. We know more about the past than you think, and that knowledge isn't from the bible either.

Not being able to prove something by an outside source isn't proof that the narrative is false.

I have don't to prove that the narrative is false. You have to prove that it is true.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

So the bible was right on the money with what then? Jesus's miracles? Might have a hard time proving that one. That he existed? What exactly was the bible right on the money with in terms of Jesus? You made it sound like there was several things that it was correct on. The bible says that he existed, but in reality there isn't a lot of real evidence that he existed. So it's not really fair to say that the bible was right on the money.

1. The temporal leaders of the day.

2. The religious leaders and their form of government in the first century

3. a myriad of cities with details concerning them.

4. Several accounts of occupations found in the first century

5. Roman and religious laws of the first century.

6. Shipping routes and practices including a rather unique account of a ship wreck.

7. Intimate knowledge of Roman and Jewish usage of time and language

Originally Posted by Burninator

Archaeologists dig up items of the past all the time. They know about people from over 6000 years ago. We know more about the past than you think, and that knowledge isn't from the bible either.

So what have they dug up belonging to the Cree Indians that date between 1230 BC and 1190 BC? Because I mean if the haven't found anything within that 40 year period that would constitute proof in your eyes that they didn't exist for that forty years.

Your argument is silly and demonstrates the unjust standard you apply to the biblical narrative. Fortunately you don't represent the many archaeologists who as a rule will look objectively at any ancient text to find clues as where to dig for long buried history.

Originally Posted by Burninator

I have don't to prove that the narrative is false. You have to prove that it is true.

Ahh... The old guilty until proven innocent arguement. Yah I mean why shouldn't we just assume every man is a liar? Which begs the question: why are we talking at all. I mean we both are probably lying right now or at least repeating lies we've been told. You probably don't know a thing about this topic but, rather are making things up as you go along. Sheesh!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So what have they dug up belonging to the Cree Indians that date between 1230 BC and 1190 BC? Because I mean if the haven't found anything within that 40 year period that would constitute proof in your eyes that they didn't exist for that forty years.

Your argument is silly and demonstrates the unjust standard you apply to the biblical narrative. Fortunately you don't represent the many archaeologists who as a rule will look objectively at any ancient text to find clues as where to dig for long buried history.

Ahh... The old guilty until proven innocent arguement. Yah I mean why shouldn't we just assume every man is a liar? Which begs the question: why are we talking at all. I mean we both are probably lying right now or at least repeating lies we've been told. You probably don't know a thing about this topic but, rather are making things up as you go along. Sheesh!

My argument is silly? You are the one stretching the logic I am putting forth. Typical religious defense. Take logic of opposition and misuse and misrepresent it in an attempt to derail their arguments. This is the evolution thread all over again.