Was Jesus Christ even a real person?

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

wolves88888

wait, what the hell, this is way off topic. get the out of this thread. we're not debating religion here!

i have the right to say whatever i want, and besides whats wrong with telling the truth?

wolves88888

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

ughh , this is so stupid

there is no god of any kind

i mean seriously were not living in the 1600s or anything, i mean everything in the bible is so made up.

i suppose you still believe the earth is flat too.

religion was just used as an easy wa out explanation on how the universe started

and its also used to give false hope to everyone and waste there life praying at church or wherever

espoac

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

wolves88888

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

ughh , this is so stupid

there is no god of any kind

i mean seriously were not living in the 1600s or anything, i mean everything in the bible is so made up.

i suppose you still believe the earth is flat too.

religion was just used as an easy wa out explanation on how the universe started

and its also used to give false hope to everyone and waste there life praying at church or wherever

espoac

well im not trying to insult anyone its just that, like my whole life im tired of people coming up to me with there damn religions telling me ill go to hell or get resurected as an ant if i dont join and im tired of it!!!

and thats how i became super atheist cuz im super fed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

LJS9502_basic

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

[QUOTE="espoac"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

ughh , this is so stupid

there is no god of any kind

i mean seriously were not living in the 1600s or anything, i mean everything in the bible is so made up.

i suppose you still believe the earth is flat too.

religion was just used as an easy wa out explanation on how the universe started

and its also used to give false hope to everyone and waste there life praying at church or wherever

wolves88888

well im not trying to insult anyone its just that, like my whole life im tired of people coming up to me with there damn religions telling me ill go to hell or get resurected as an ant if i dont join and im tired of it!!!

and thats how i became super atheist cuz im super fed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

When it comes down to it, its really not a big deal that our civilization be based upon myth. After all thats how all ancient civilizations reared themselves. It's just that nowadays we're so strict on logic and rational that even the most astute of people who claim atheism wouldnt dare go near such a disastrous question.

Oh and the question of Josephus writing about Christ is a proven forgery. You'd be more akin to finding historical evidence of Christ by Buddhists in India. Seriously.

mig_killer2

Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

And there is as much evidence that proves he rose from the grave?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Devosion

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

[QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

Hellraiser3899

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Devosion

No kidding I never knew a man living around the end of BC early AD as a Hebrew would not have a fitting name.:roll: As I said someone (probably you) tried this story before and I researched it with links. It's incorrect, unsubstantiated, and false.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

When it comes down to it, its really not a big deal that our civilization be based upon myth. After all thats how all ancient civilizations reared themselves. It's just that nowadays we're so strict on logic and rational that even the most astute of people who claim atheism wouldnt dare go near such a disastrous question.

Oh and the question of Josephus writing about Christ is a proven forgery. You'd be more akin to finding historical evidence of Christ by Buddhists in India. Seriously.

Devosion

Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

And there is as much evidence that proves he rose from the grave?

[QUOTE="Hellraiser3899"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

wolves88888

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

[QUOTE="Hellraiser3899"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

wolves88888

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

First....you're bounded by man's capabilities...whereas a God wouldn't be so the first two are not proof.

Then you go into the OT....religion CAN exist with evolution. That's out.

Jesus wasn't swallowed by a whale or split the sea. That's out.

As for the last statement....that's not His plan. Perhaps you can ask Him someday.

[QUOTE="wolves88888"]

i have the right to say whatever i want, and besides whats wrong with telling the truth?

mig_killer2

hey, i didnt post this bulletin, if i post a bulletin on atheism then feel free to insult but i wont so yeah

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

i have the right to say whatever i want, and besides whats wrong with telling the truth?

wolves88888

hey, i didnt post this bulletin, if i post a bulletin on atheism then feel free to insult but i wont so yeah

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

mig_killer2

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Yehoshua is the name forJesus inaramaic. Yeshu and Yeshua are plays on the same name, but in hebrew. Both of which occur frequently in Judaic scripture, which incidentally is the foundation for all Christian thought and practice aside from the whole Son of God thing.

The amount of ignorance in this thread sickens me. I demand a new rule stating that in all religion threads you must atleast do some research before you speak. Otherwise, having a good debate is nonexistent. I'm not even going to waste my energy on some of you here.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Devosion

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Yehoshua is the name forJesus inaramaic. Yeshu and Yeshua are plays on the same name, but in hebrew. Both of which occur frequently in Judaic scripture, which incidentally is the foundation for all Christian thought and practice aside from the whole Son of God thing.

The amount of ignorance in this thread sickens me. I demand a new rule stating that in all religion threads you must atleast do some research before you speak. Otherwise, having a good debate is nonexistent. I'm not even going to waste my energy on some of you here.

the_foreign_guy

Welcome to the world of religious debate...where facts are ignored and opinion is king. Annoying isn't it?

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

When it comes down to it, its really not a big deal that our civilization be based upon myth. After all thats how all ancient civilizations reared themselves. It's just that nowadays we're so strict on logic and rational that even the most astute of people who claim atheism wouldnt dare go near such a disastrous question.

Oh and the question of Josephus writing about Christ is a proven forgery. You'd be more akin to finding historical evidence of Christ by Buddhists in India. Seriously.

mig_killer2

Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

And there is as much evidence that proves he rose from the grave?

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

[QUOTE="Hellraiser3899"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

wolves88888

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

Evolution is completely irreleveant to this topic.

As to your "impossible" arguements...that's kind of the whole point why people think miracles are a big deal.

Sixth: Well, an all-knowing being's actions can't really be questioned. Let's say God does exist.And he is all-knowing. Questioning his actions would be illogical. I know VERY little about chemistry, yet if I was debating a certain subject of Chemistry with an expert Chemist, would it seem logical for me to call him wrong in a certain statement he gave about the Chemistry, with me knowing very little about the subject?

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

mig_killer2

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Yehoshua is the name forJesus inaramaic. Yeshu and Yeshua are plays on the same name, but in hebrew. Both of which occur frequently in Judaic scripture, which incidentally is the foundation for all Christian thought and practice aside from the whole Son of God thing.

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

When it comes down to it, its really not a big deal that our civilization be based upon myth. After all thats how all ancient civilizations reared themselves. It's just that nowadays we're so strict on logic and rational that even the most astute of people who claim atheism wouldnt dare go near such a disastrous question.

Oh and the question of Josephus writing about Christ is a proven forgery. You'd be more akin to finding historical evidence of Christ by Buddhists in India. Seriously.

Devosion

Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

And there is as much evidence that proves he rose from the grave?

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

Devosion

Where is your proof the tomb wasn't guarded?

world of religious debate...where facts are ignored and opinion is king. Annoying isn't it?

LJS9502_basic

How do you manage to put up with it? :lol:

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

Devosion

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Yehoshua is the name forJesus inaramaic. Yeshu and Yeshua are plays on the same name, but in hebrew. Both of which occur frequently in Judaic scripture, which incidentally is the foundation for all Christian thought and practice aside from the whole Son of God thing.

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

im out of here

im sorry if i insulted everyone

i just get worked up on topics like these

so sorry for that

see ya

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

LJS9502_basic

Where is your proof the tomb wasn't guarded?

I raise the same question to you. And by asking that question then it raises the implications that the Romans new of the pivotal nature of Christ and were already attempting to politicize his death, resurrection, and advent of religious theology.

And if it was guarded then how did Mary get to his tomb?

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

Devosion

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua....not Joseph. Christ also came from a Greek word. The original NT was written in Greek.

Proof of this last statement please. Particularly since none of you facts have been correct in this thread yet.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

Devosion

Where is your proof the tomb wasn't guarded?

I raise the same question to you. And by asking that question then it raises the implications that the Romans new of the pivotal nature of Christ and were already attempting to politicize his death, resurrection, and advent of religious theology.

And if it was guarded then how did Mary get to his tomb?

First...show me where I stated anything about guards except in response to your thread. The burden in on YOU.

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

LJS9502_basic

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua....not Joseph. Christ also came from a Greek word. The original NT was written in Greek.

Proof of this last statement please. Particularly since none of you facts have been correct in this thread yet.

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually historians don't agree with you...by the way, the Buddhist monk story is a myth.;)

mig_killer2

Why? Because it supports allegations of Christ having not died on the cross?

The name doesn't fit...bad translation...and you'd have to take that up with the historical scholoars whom said it was true.

The name never fit to begin with. The original name of Jesus Christ was Yeshua. Which was a play on Yehoshua. And even the surname Christ has no original fit to the person. Christ simply meant the annointed one and was used in Mithraism to denote those who underwent the mysteries of Mithra. Even Hermes was refered to as the annointed one. Historically Jesus Christs name is so ambiguous that it fits in with ancient myth.

Yehoshua is the name forJesus inaramaic. Yeshu and Yeshua are plays on the same name, but in hebrew. Both of which occur frequently in Judaic scripture, which incidentally is the foundation for all Christian thought and practice aside from the whole Son of God thing.

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

The Tanakh predates the New Testament byover 400 years. Where the coming of Christ is officially mentioned. The name Yeshua is also taken from an even older source of Greek translations, where it had been used to describe Dionysus.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]world of religious debate...where facts are ignored and opinion is king. Annoying isn't it?

the_foreign_guy

How do you manage to put up with it? :lol:

I have my techniques....

[QUOTE="wolves88888"][QUOTE="Hellraiser3899"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

LJS9502_basic

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

First....you're bounded by man's capabilities...whereas a God wouldn't be so the first two are not proof.

Then you go into the OT....religion CAN exist with evolution. That's out.

Jesus wasn't swallowed by a whale or split the sea. That's out.

As for the last statement....that's not His plan. Perhaps you can ask Him someday.

Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.espoac

Different times...different cultures.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wolves88888"][QUOTE="Hellraiser3899"][QUOTE="wolves88888"]

please , im sure u have proof too that everything in the bible is true

espoac

alright then, well first of all u cant have supernatural powers and magically heal somebody, this isnt harry potter or anything

second walking on water is impossible

third evolution is true, fossil records are proof enough

fourth splitting the red sea is impossible

fifth getting swallowed by a whale and then spat up again andbeing able to live to tell the tale is 99.9999999 %impossible

sixth , i there really was a god then why is there som much suffering in the world, i mean he is all powerful right, so he should be able to fix everything

First....you're bounded by man's capabilities...whereas a God wouldn't be so the first two are not proof.

Then you go into the OT....religion CAN exist with evolution. That's out.

Jesus wasn't swallowed by a whale or split the sea. That's out.

As for the last statement....that's not His plan. Perhaps you can ask Him someday.

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

LJS9502_basic

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua....not Joseph. Christ also came from a Greek word. The original NT was written in Greek.

Proof of this last statement please. Particularly since none of you facts have been correct in this thread yet.

Actually Jesus is the mistranslation from Yeshua from yet another existing mistranslation that came from greek. And I have to say the same of your own facts as well.

[QUOTE="espoac"] Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.LJS9502_basic

Different times...different cultures.

Different gods would have been the correct answer.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="espoac"] Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.Devosion

Different times...different cultures.

Different gods would have been the correct answer.

maybe before you make dumb statements like these, perhaps you can learn more about us and our beliefs

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] [QUOTE="Devosion"]

Jesus Christ isnt a name. It's a pseudonym. His original name only was Joseph, according to the hebrew, and whatever real implications of a real Jesus are lost to us.

What is certain though is that everything Christ did in his life another 'savior' already had for a civilization before it. Christ is a re-personification of a religious myth.

Devosion

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua....not Joseph. Christ also came from a Greek word. The original NT was written in Greek.

Proof of this last statement please. Particularly since none of you facts have been correct in this thread yet.

Actually Jesus is the mistranslation from Yeshua from yet another existing mistranslation that came from greek. And I have to say the same of your own facts as well.

Which is Joshua. And you didn't answer the second question. Avoiding the facts and sidestepping issue. ;)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="espoac"] Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.Devosion

Different times...different cultures.

Different gods would have been the correct answer.

That would be the INCORRECT answer...but in keeping with your record thus far.

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Devosion"]

So the logical explanation is he rose from his grave in ethereal form. And why would the Romans bother guarding a dead mans tomb? Its amazing how many people dont look closely at the advent of Mary's going to the tomb. Whether it be symbolical or real it had many implications.

LJS9502_basic

Where is your proof the tomb wasn't guarded?

I raise the same question to you. And by asking that question then it raises the implications that the Romans new of the pivotal nature of Christ and were already attempting to politicize his death, resurrection, and advent of religious theology.

And if it was guarded then how did Mary get to his tomb?

First...show me where I stated anything about guards except in response to your thread. The burden in on YOU.

I have no aim to provide you truth of authority. If you feel that has been the case then the burden has indeed shifted sides. All I have done is raise implications contrary, and yet just as well researched and considered as your own.

Again I need not provide proof besides the fact that Roman never guarded their dead. Had he been guarded then how does this explain how Mary came to his tomb? Did she go to the wrong tomb? If he was guarded then his ascension would have been noticed and no doubt reported.

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="espoac"] Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.LJS9502_basic

Different times...different cultures.

Different gods would have been the correct answer.

That would be the INCORRECT answer...but in keeping with your record thus far.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="espoac"] Just wondering, how do you rationalize the difference between the New and Old Testaments? The gods in both are one in the same. Why is the god of the Old Testament so vindictive and war-mongering as opposed to the milder god of the new testament.Devosion

Different times...different cultures.

Different gods would have been the correct answer.