[quote]pushharder wrote:
something about how Buddhists[/quote]
Really? I toy with the idea of Buddhism once and I’m now a Buddhist?
You’re losing your touch, old man.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is where the idea was copied from. If you actually took a world view outside of your limited perspective you’d see just how much of the Bible is plagiarized materials with a few names changed here and there.[/quote]
Well, first of all, you don’t know that for sure. The person who wrote the story of Noah may or may not have known about the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, so you’re just speculating. In either case, it wasn’t an eye-witness account.
I don’t really know why the names change from culture to culture, other than to make the stories seem familiar to the reader. Other than that, writing your own account of something that happened doesn’t mean you’re plagiarizing some other guy that did the same.[/quote]
It would be plausible if that were the only tale not copied from other religions from around the area. But it’s not. It’s one of many. It’s a very poor cut and paste job, stealing from various cultures ranging from ancient Sumer to Greece to Egypt.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is where the idea was copied from. If you actually took a world view outside of your limited perspective you’d see just how much of the Bible is plagiarized materials with a few names changed here and there.[/quote]
Well, first of all, you don’t know that for sure. The person who wrote the story of Noah may or may not have known about the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, so you’re just speculating. In either case, it wasn’t an eye-witness account.
I don’t really know why the names change from culture to culture, other than to make the stories seem familiar to the reader. Other than that, writing your own account of something that happened doesn’t mean you’re plagiarizing some other guy that did the same.[/quote]
It would be plausible if that were the only tale not copied from other religions from around the area. But it’s not. It’s one of many. It’s a very poor cut and paste job, stealing from various cultures ranging from ancient Sumer to Greece to Egypt.[/quote]
…i’ve mentioned this before, and there’s even a Chinese flood story, but this all boils down to the end of the last ice age. Much of the northern hemisphere was covered by a sheet of ice miles thick, and when that melted: WATER!
…so not only were there a lot of floods, but the weather improved considerably. “How did that happen?”, the neolithic cave dwellers asked themselves. And since they were neolithic cave dwellers the answer was simple, “God did it”…
…and here we are, some 12000 years later still discussing fable and lore as if it’s truth. It’s mindboggling, but you knew that already…
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]redpeters wrote:
I’m sorry to be off topic but returning to the original question. The Epic of Gilgamesh is independent of the Bible and confirms the story of Noah. When God created the Earth about 6000 years ago there was an additional protective barrier of some kind of water vapor in the atmosphere that actually filtered out the UV rays and allowed people to live longer. This water vapor enventually fell for 40 days and along with earthquakes helped flood the Earth. And ever since that day people have lived shorter lives.
Another side note on fossils. A person’s face continues to grow with age. For example when someone lived to be 900 years there ears, brows and other parts would continue to grow. When these were found in archiaelogical digs evolutionists said they were transitions from apes to humans. Lizards grew to monster size during this period and were not brought on the ship. In the Bible it states Noah had 3 sons in his 500th year. Either they were triplets or Noah had them by 3 different wives which may be how the different race of people carried on. It’s fun to speculate but the important thing is to keep the faith of our Lord and Savior where all good things originate.[/quote]
The Epic of Gilgamesh is where the idea was copied from. If you actually took a world view outside of your limited perspective you’d see just how much of the Bible is plagiarized materials with a few names changed here and there.[/quote]
And THIS is my problem with Christianity and religion in general. Most religion wants you to accept its cannons and rejects others when in fact, all these stories have been told prior, in some permutation or other. For instance, Christ, the resurrection after 3 days - NONE of it is even original. I could go on but you get the point.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is where the idea was copied from. If you actually took a world view outside of your limited perspective you’d see just how much of the Bible is plagiarized materials with a few names changed here and there.[/quote]
Well, first of all, you don’t know that for sure. The person who wrote the story of Noah may or may not have known about the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, so you’re just speculating. In either case, it wasn’t an eye-witness account.
I don’t really know why the names change from culture to culture, other than to make the stories seem familiar to the reader. Other than that, writing your own account of something that happened doesn’t mean you’re plagiarizing some other guy that did the same.[/quote]
The hebrew bible is thought to date back to 12th century BCE. The earliest flood account is thought to have dated to 17th centure BCE. Draw your own conclusions. Those that believe in the infallibility of the bible will retort that there was oral tradition predating the bible and that the biblical version is correct and original. In other words, those that believe in the infallibility of the bible cannot be presented with anything that will change their minds - such is the nature of blind “faith”. It only stands to reason then that these discussions lead to nowhere - giving rise to the age old maxim to never discuss politics or religion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
something about how Buddhists[/quote]
Really? I toy with the idea of Buddhism once and I’m now a Buddhist?
You’re losing your touch, old man.[/quote]
Predates Christianity and one cannot ignore the Buddhist leanings of Jesus himself if one cared to pay attention.
[quote]Ghald wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If god is all-knowing and all-powerful…
Why do bad people exist? Because people have free will?
Why does cancer exist and why does god allow it to exist? Because micro-organisms have free will?
Why does god allow tornadoes and tsunamis to exist and take children away from their parents, even if the parents are good christians?
Either god doesn’t exist, or he’s ignorant/evil.
There is a third option, it could be that you do not know the mind of God and therefore cannot comprehend what’s going on. This is not an attack as I am not far behind you on the understanding part. But I do know this, when man first sinned much evil, disease and other catastrophes were ushered into the world. I don’t especially like it anymore than you do.
It sucks that billions of people had to suffer worldwide through out history because of a few early sinners. Way to turn the other cheek there God. I think he needs anger management
I feel your frustration man, but God is sovereign and no matter how smart you and I are I can assure you that God is in a class by himself when it comes to intelligence. There is a master plan I can assure you of that. Keep in mind even if you live to be 100 no matter how much you may suffer if you have eternity in paradise to make up for it I’d say that’s a great trade-off for man, no? It’s all about faith my friend, not an easy thing, but well worth it.
We’re not frustrated man, just pointing out that what is happening all around us seems to be in order with a natural chaotic world, where good luck and bad luck happens to people not expecting it.
You could say its all part of a masterplan, but no offense, I dont think there is any proof to support that claim. People feeling strongly about it is not proof. I dont like to base my argues on what could be, but on facts we can all see with our on eyes in the world around us.
Actions speak louder than words. If god did exist, the fact that he/she remains inactive in helping good moral people during great disasters and difficult diseases, tells alot. Saying its the fault of a few sinners in the past just doesn’t cut it.
[/quote]
I guess my first question to you would have to be this; how much of the Bible have you read if any? I’m not trying to criticize you, but there are many who don’t really understand what’s going on and only see the here and now because that’s all they’ve ever been introduced to. For you, or anyone, to say God doesn’t make sense to them before they’ve taken the time to at least try to understand Gods word doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s sort of like me attacking the latest book by one of the T Nation authors before I’ve given it a fair read.
Make sense?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
something about how Buddhists[/quote]
Really? I toy with the idea of Buddhism once and I’m now a Buddhist?
You’re losing your touch, old man.[/quote]
Predates Christianity and one cannot ignore the Buddhist leanings of Jesus himself if one cared to pay attention.[/quote]
This is beyond my league, but I would like to ask that since Buddah predates Christianity, and you guys dont beleive Christianity because it is so old and we have been enlighted over the past 2000 years, why do you follow buddhism? Go figure.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I guess my first question to you would have to be this; how much of the Bible have you read if any? I’m not trying to criticize you, but there are many who don’t really understand what’s going on and only see the here and now because that’s all they’ve ever been introduced to. For you, or anyone, to say God doesn’t make sense to them before they’ve taken the time to at least try to understand Gods word doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s sort of like me attacking the latest book by one of the T Nation authors before I’ve given it a fair read.
Make sense?
[/quote]
Yes I do get what you mean. One cannot criticize god before reading what he says in his holy book. Actually I have read the Bible quite alot when I was young. I did enjoy some of the tales, for example Simson the strongman (big surprise I wandered to T-Nation eh?). But I never got any religious upliftings from it. I quess im too skeptical and analytic for that.
I presume you have studied Bible more closely then? What would you say is the reason God allows natural disasters to happen, even though he has the power to stop them?
Many times a child survives an earthquake and people say, “God saved that child”. Well, lots of children died in the earthquake, why didn’t God save them?
Don’t take this as an attack, I appreciate your answers.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]
No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:
“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”
Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…
Here is some more:
Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]
You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.
Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]
Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.
Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?
I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]
Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]
Geez, it’s even on a T-Shirt…
http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_heroes_professor_stephen_hawking_tshirt-235763651563179960
Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[quote]Ghald wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I guess my first question to you would have to be this; how much of the Bible have you read if any? I’m not trying to criticize you, but there are many who don’t really understand what’s going on and only see the here and now because that’s all they’ve ever been introduced to. For you, or anyone, to say God doesn’t make sense to them before they’ve taken the time to at least try to understand Gods word doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s sort of like me attacking the latest book by one of the T Nation authors before I’ve given it a fair read.
Make sense?
Yes I do get what you mean. One cannot criticize god before reading what he says in his holy book. Actually I have read the Bible quite alot when I was young. I did enjoy some of the tales, for example Simson the strongman (big surprise I wandered to T-Nation eh?). But I never got any religious upliftings from it. I quess im too skeptical and analytic for that.[/quote]
Not necessarily, maybe you’re just looking for the wrong thing. Many people think that they have to be emotionally moved or uplifted as you put it. I don’t think that’s the case. Also, I think if you go back now, as an adult you will get far more out of it and have a much better understanding of its true meaning. For example, the coming of Jesus Christ was predicted over 300 times in the Old Testament. That was up to thousands of years before his birth!
Natural disasters do not negate God’s divine benevolence. God created a world ruled by certain natural laws. If someone jumps out of a 20th story window he will most assuredly fall to his death as gravity pulls him down. Jump in front of a bus and the laws of motion will flatten you pretty quickly. These same laws that govern gravity and motion also govern nature, weather etc.
As it says in the Bible the rain falls upon the just and the unjust. We do not believe so that we can forever be protected, in this lifetime, from all harm, that’s not going to happen. Even the major figures in the Bible who spoke directly to God fought challenges and were at times (I’m sure) wondering what was happening and why God had allowed what he did.
See Mosses, Joseph, David and many others.
[quote]Many times a child survives an earthquake and people say, “God saved that child”. Well, lots of children died in the earthquake, why didn’t God save them?
Don’t take this as an attack, I appreciate your answers.
[/quote]
I have not taken anything that you’ve said as an attack. I think you’re a bright guy who is asking intelligent questions regarding a very important issue.
As to your question, why didn’t God save the other children? My only answer is that we see this life and this life only. As I stated in an earlier post, you may live to be 100 but what is 100 years compared to eternity? Can you and I even fathom eternity? I know that I can’t get my arms around it. But I do know that living in paradise for trillions of years is certainly something to look forward to and that’s the promise of God’s word. The little children you speak of are now in heaven. Why God chose to take them now is only for God to know (that word “faith” again).
We have reached a point on this earth where man must know every fact and detail or he will not believe. We have reached that age where the Bible specifically says that knowledge will abound and people will turn from God. Even the elect will be fooled.
Faith is just that, faith. I will never be able to prove to you that there is a God. But I do think that there is very compelling evidence in the Bible and in fact in historical data of the time of Jesus Christ. I have studied it and became convinced.
I’m sorry that I cannot provide better answers for you, I am certainly not a Bible scholar, but I am someone who is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he will return again.
One more thing, before you cast God out of your life, do some studying of your own. Take a look at the Bible and the many historical documents which prove that Jesus Christ lived and that he did many miraculous things. You are asking good questions for a reason, get the answers that you seek!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]
No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:
“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”
Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…
Here is some more:
Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]
You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.
Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]
Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.
Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?
I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]
Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]
Geez, it’s even on a T-Shirt…
http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_heroes_professor_stephen_hawking_tshirt-235763651563179960
Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]
You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:
"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Ghald wrote:
ZEB wrote:
For example, the coming of Jesus Christ was predicted over 300 times in the Old Testament. That was up to thousands of years before his birth!
[/quote]
You do realize that a messiah was predicted by ancient religions prior to the Old Testament? You do realize that the OT was the book of the Jews and that he Jews do not recognize Jesus as the savior and/or son of God predicted? You do realize that other religions that recognize such a messiah (Islam for one) do not recognize Jesus as the son of God, but only a holy prophet? If one really want to honestly explore the truth (which in the case of faith and belief will be whatever personal conclusion you arrive at), why would you rely on the bible itself to prove your faith? If the good book is to have an open and honest examination - as you appear to suggest by encouraging someone to revisit it - why would we not look to other source material in our exploration of “faith” and “god”?
How simple is this?:
Religious views
Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion,[52][53] He has repeatedly used the word ‘God’ (in metaphorical meanings)[54] to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife Jane however said he was an atheist during their divorce proceedings,[55][56] Hawking has stated that he is “not religious in the normal sense” and he believes that “the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”[52]
And I think the following is a pretty fair and balanced view point on Hawkings, albeit a tad biased but it even further explores the general beliefs of scientists, which pat would have us believe are all part of this subversive atheist movement - using science to deny God.
It is pretty damn clear that Hawkings denies being an atheist. Which makes it pretty damn clear why the only reference material you can provide in support of your charge are misinterpreted (by you) quotes and a link to damn t-shirt.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?
Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?
Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.[/quote]
LOL at you seriously. Water from space/comet could not penetrate the ATMOSPHERE - you know, that protective layer around the earth that returning spacecraft have to CAREFULLY negotiate at precisely the correct angle lest they burn up on reentry or, that regularly burns up meteors, etc.??? LOL. So lemme get this right…a HUGE comet, filled with enough water to flood the world, passed by earth, exploded, and the water/vapor/whatever, penetrated the atmosphere to cause a flood? And you tell me not to talk science. You tell me to do the research? Please provide references to support your theory as long as you’re on this “research” slant. I anxiously await your references.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
ZEB wrote:
For example, the coming of Jesus Christ was predicted over 300 times in the Old Testament. That was up to thousands of years before his birth!
You do realize that a messiah was predicted by ancient religions prior to the Old Testament?[/quote]
I am not familiar with other ancient religions predicting the birth of Jesus Christ. If you have any references I’d really like to see them as I would find it quite fascinating. This would only further verify the fact that Christ is indeed the messiah.
Um, yea there’s that whole religion called “Judaism”. It was also predicted that the Jews would reject Christ, and that’s exactly what happened.
I think most people are aware of the muslim faith. The certainly do not accept Christ as the messiah, if they did they would be called Christians. Anyway, that did not prevent many from accepting Christ and in fact dying for his name. Nor does it stop millions of Christians today from believing that Jesus Christ is the messiah.
I’ve studied Buddhism, and read a great deal regarding other religions and found that the Christian Bible made the most sense to me. I’ve also read literature from many historical writers of Christ’s day which are obviously outside of the Bible
I suggested that he read the Bible and all historical documents of the time. As a Christian I am of the belief that history, not just the Bible backs up the existence of Jesus Christ. There are many who really don’t understand that Jesus is an historical figure and when they find out that he is and the many things that he did it is quite an eye opener.
As for not recommending that someone read the Tripitaka for example, the answers to the posters questions cannot be found there, or any where other than the Bible. There is only one man who healed so many with miracles. There is only one man who raised people from the dead. There is only one man who claimed that the only way to eternal life is through belief in him. There is only one man who claimed that he would die for our sins, and did. And there is only one man who rose from the dead! That man is Jesus Christ. Therefore, I recommended that the poster read the Christian Bible. Do you realize that it’s a good read? Have you read it yet?
Zeb… where are you getting this?
Have you read to messianic proficiencies in the Tanakh? Or are you taking some preacher’s world that they’re there, and talking about Jesus?
Can you cite a single prophecy that is clearly about Jesus? Because I can find many about the coming of the messiah, and the messiah being someone or doing things that Jesus clearly wasn’t and didn’t do (so Christians made up the idea of a 2nd coming…).
Yes, Christ is indeed the Messiah, mostly because Christ isn’t Jesus’s last name, but a title, a poor Greek translation of the word Messiah (literally closer to meaning “good”).
Where in the Tanakh does it say that Jews (God’s chosen people) will reject their own Messiah? Refer me to a passage please.
And yes, Muslims aknowledge Jesus OF NAZARETH (because again Christ isn’t his last name) as a prophet.
What’s a historical writer from Jesus of Nazareth’s day you’ve read? And what did they say about Jesus? (Hint, there not even Roman records of the execution).
Also, when did JESUS (not the narrator John) claim he died for our sins?