A_Falcies_Fancy's forum posts

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"] Wrong. The crucifixion did happen. We have historical documents saying it did.hydralisk86
actually, this is false. there is no inscrutible evidence for the crucifixion. there are a few extrabiblical sources that reference Jesus but there all dated from at least 50 years after Jesus died and there not exactly what I'd call trustworthy.

is 50 years that long enough for it to be accurate??

Imagine you saw a document today about a guy who was crucified in 1960. wouldn't you be skeptical as to why there was no news until now. Also, 50 years was a conservative estimate on my part. Tacitus wasn't even born until 70 years AFTER Jesus died, which means his writing wasn't until at least 100 years after the death of Christ. Thats why hes not absolutely reliable.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"]

[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"] im looking it up again just so i don't give you wrong information, but if i'm not mistaken, the historian youre talking about, his name evades me, was known for being like, The National Enquirer of Roman times. but, even if thats untrue, Jesus wouldn't of been newsworthy at the time he was crucified. so the only reason that historian documented Jesus, which was probably only a sentence or two, was probably because he had gained notoriety after his death because Christians were considered a cult in Rome up until about 200-300 CE.gaming25

his name is Tacitus. and this link has alot of info for you.

Those people are respected historians so I dont see this "national enquirer of roman times" at all.

That's what my Latin teacher called Tacitus, and I trust his judgment, although I fully recognize that he could be wrong. Tacitus wrote alot about the lives of the Emperors and its his writings that are the source for the miniseries I, Claudius (look it up). He popularized the theory that all the emperors up to Nero were poisoned, most of which have never been confirmed. The point is, though, that Tacitus' judgment isn't trustworthy. How could he know about Jesus? Also, there is NO mention of the crucifixion, he mentions Christ, but only once, in one very obscure sentence.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

So, i finally think i'm gunna buy a wii. (im usually very very Anti-Wii) but SMG2 looks like a really fun game, and I also need to play the first one, and other M is coming out so I think im gunna buy one. Wheres the best place to buy one and get a good deal? It doesn't really matter to me if its used but I only think I'll buy used if I can save like 75-100 dollars.

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"] actually, this is false. there is no inscrutible evidence for the crucifixion. there are a few extrabiblical sources that reference Jesus but there all dated from at least 50 years after Jesus died and there not exactly what I'd call trustworthy.A_Falcies_Fancy
You wouldnt call a known Roman historian to be trust worthy???

im looking it up again just so i don't give you wrong information, but if i'm not mistaken, the historian youre talking about, his name evades me, was known for being like, The National Enquirer of Roman times. but, even if thats untrue, Jesus wouldn't of been newsworthy at the time he was crucified. so the only reason that historian documented Jesus, which was probably only a sentence or two, was probably because he had gained notoriety after his death because Christians were considered a cult in Rome up until about 200-300 CE.

his name is Tacitus. and this link has alot of info for you.

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"] Wrong. The crucifixion did happen. We have historical documents saying it did.gaming25
actually, this is false. there is no inscrutible evidence for the crucifixion. there are a few extrabiblical sources that reference Jesus but there all dated from at least 50 years after Jesus died and there not exactly what I'd call trustworthy.

You wouldnt call a known Roman historian to be trust worthy???

im looking it up again just so i don't give you wrong information, but if i'm not mistaken, the historian youre talking about, his name evades me, was known for being like, The National Enquirer of Roman times. but, even if thats untrue, Jesus wouldn't of been newsworthy at the time he was crucified. so the only reason that historian documented Jesus, which was probably only a sentence or two, was probably because he had gained notoriety after his death because Christians were considered a cult in Rome up until about 200-300 CE.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"]i don't think Christianity says anything about it. The whole crux of Christiandom is that you, the believer, are in spirtual debt to Jesus because he shed his blood for you. Without the crucifixion, there is no debt, so there would be really no reason to accept it. But honestly, the crucifixion most likely DIDN'T happen anyway, so Christianity would be just as it is now.hydralisk86
Wrong. The crucifixion did happen. We have historical documents saying it did.

actually, this is false. there is no inscrutible evidence for the crucifixion. there are a few extrabiblical sources that reference Jesus but there all dated from at least 50 years after Jesus died and there not exactly what I'd call trustworthy.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"]oh, rly? what about "the debt of sin" or to quote Lord I Lift Your Name On High,"My debt tooooo pay...". A debt by any other name is still a debt. Especially when there's consequences if you don't pay it back, i.e. eternal pain and suffering in the form of hell. Also, your second point is why Christianity is a little crazy in the first place. So, God sent himself, in another body, to die or not to die on a cross so that he could change a rule that he made himself. Its gibberish, in my opinion, or at the very least, your God is somewhat inefficient. (p.s. im not bashing here, just offering constructive criticism, i respect your religion and all that wot."Xx_Hopeless_xX

Uhm actually...you don't go to hell for "not repaying a debt"..you go for completely disrespecting God in many ways...and not feeling sorry for what you've done..

Christ paid the debt of sin with his life. If you don't repay that by believing in him as the only true son of God then Christianity teaches that Hell awaits. Denying God's existence is the penultimate sin. You can be the nicest most generous and kind person in existence but without accepting Jesus into your heart or whatever, you're hellbound. Source: many years wasted as a Protestant church goer and a Catholic girlfriend
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
oh, rly? what about "the debt of sin" or to quote Lord I Lift Your Name On High,"My debt tooooo pay...". A debt by any other name is still a debt. Especially when there's consequences if you don't pay it back, i.e. eternal pain and suffering in the form of hell. Also, your second point is why Christianity is a little crazy in the first place. So, God sent himself, in another body, to die or not to die on a cross so that he could change a rule that he made himself. Its gibberish, in my opinion, or at the very least, your God is somewhat inefficient. (p.s. im not bashing here, just offering constructive criticism, i respect your religion and all that wot."
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
i spend about fifteen minutes explaining the plot of "Friday After Next" to my friends almost everytime we hang out. :P
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
I WISH. all she cares about is the mall and clothes . bleh ! :(mm551144
this. pretty much my situation, lol.