• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If Jesus were not crucified and resurrected ,would you still believe in Him ?

If Jesus were not crucified and resurrected ,would you still believe in Him ?

  • Total voters
    23
Urethra Franklin said:
He was not the son of God. God doesn't exist.

There were many so-called Messiahs sent to save us who were crucified. (See the work of excellent historian Lynn Picknett: Mary Magdalene: Lynn Picknett: 9780786713110: Amazon.com: Books)

Jesus wasn't the only one, he just got the best PR job.
Click to expand...

A couple of popes ago, the pontiff was asked about that, in the light of history's explanations of the various claims here and
there and the success of Christianity as we know it, etc.

His response was (not verbatim): "The Holy Spirit works through humanity, through what people and governments do. That early,
small church blossomed.. and here we are."
 
ludin said:
why read someone who continues to spout the same myths that have already been debunked and destroyed?
that doesn't sound very logical to me.

Mary Magdalene was nothing more than another follow of Christ. nothing more nothing less.

also attempting to state your opinion as a fact will need evidence,
however we all know that you don't have evidence that God does not exist.

therefore your opinion is noted and rejected.
Click to expand...

Picknett writes about more than just Mary Magdeleine - her book is an excellent debunking of the gospel myth.

You judge something you haven't read. I have read the bible and I'm not convinced.

Noted you reject my opinion and I equally reject yours.
 
alienmarbles said:
A couple of popes ago, the pontiff was asked about that, in the light of history's explanations of the various claims here and
there and the success of Christianity as we know it, etc.

His response was (not verbatim): "The Holy Spirit works through humanity, through what people and governments do. That early,
small church blossomed.. and here we are."
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. The spirits I appreciate come in bottles.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Sure he did.
Click to expand...

Well, unlike your pagan myth personalities, we actually have real life, contemporary eyewitnesses for the resurrection of Christ - a real individual in history. You don't have anything like that for your myths, do you Urethra? No real pagan deities and no real contemporary eyewitnesses.
 
Logicman said:
Well, unlike your pagan myth personalities, we actually have real life, contemporary eyewitnesses for the resurrection of Christ - a real individual in history. You don't have anything like that for your myths, do you Urethra? No real pagan deities and no real contemporary eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...

Nobody denies that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. He certainly walked this earth - he just wasn't the son the God.

I am not a pagan.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Nobody denies that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. He certainly walked this earth - he just wasn't the son the God.
Click to expand...

Not only is Jesus the son of God, but he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.

'The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."'

What does it mean that Jesus is God's only begotten son?
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Picknett writes about more than just Mary Magdeleine - her book is an excellent debunking of the gospel myth.

You judge something you haven't read. I have read the bible and I'm not convinced.

Noted you reject my opinion and I equally reject yours.
Click to expand...

the difference is you come into the religious forum and spout stuff by an author who has already
been debunked by plenty of people.

there is nothing that she says that hasn't already been addressed or is simply conjecture.
so you are basing your opinion on already flawed information.

not what I would consider a good thing to do.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Sure he did.
Click to expand...

so you are saying the other 500 people that saw him after his dead at different times all experienced the same
mass delusion? you would have a hard time proving that.
 
Logicman said:
Not only is Jesus the son of God, but he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.

'The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."'

What does it mean that Jesus is God's only begotten son?
Click to expand...

And Jah Rastafari will lead the lost children back to Ethiopia.
And Clara gets married and Freda dies in the end.
It's a book.
 
ludin said:
the difference is you come into the religious forum and spout stuff by an author who has already
been debunked by plenty of people.

there is nothing that she says that hasn't already been addressed or is simply conjecture.
so you are basing your opinion on already flawed information.
Click to expand...

You've yet to tell us if you've actually read Picknett's book? Or are you simply dismissing it out of hand? Not what I would consider a good thing to do.

I don't dismiss the bible out of hand. I've read the book itself and I've read an awful lot about it. It served its purpose in simpler times, and the gospels are probably a very loose account of vague historical events that we would interpret differently now. For example when in Luke we read "and he was possessed by a demon" we would probably read today "and he had an epileptic fit" - as man's knowledge evolves who knows what explanations we'll have in the future for other as yet unexplained phenomena that we today put down to ghosts, ghouls, aliens, psychic forces, gods etc.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. Nor do I have "faith" which is basically believing something without proof. I'm both Cartesian and scientific in my approach. I need reason and I base my life choices on evidence. You choose to do differently, that's your affair.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
And Jah Rastafari will lead the lost children back to Ethiopia.
And Clara gets married and Freda dies in the end.
It's a book.
Click to expand...

It appears most probable that you haven't done your homework to know if the Gospels are true.
 
ludin said:
so you are saying the other 500 people that saw him after his dead at different times all experienced the same
mass delusion? you would have a hard time proving that.
Click to expand...

See above. Was he actually dead or comatose? Was what's written a dramatic exaggeration of actual facts?
 
Logicman said:
It appears most probable that you haven't done your homework to know if the Gospels are true.
Click to expand...

It appears most probable that I have a point of view that differs from your own and that all I've read abut you in the Basement is closer to the truth than anything in the gospels.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
See above. Was he actually dead or comatose? Was what's written a dramatic exaggeration of actual facts?
Click to expand...

Even the current today medical examiner said it would have been impossible for him to survive
without sever medical attention even then that would have been iffy at best.
 
ludin said:
Even the current today medical examiner said it would have been impossible for him to survive
without sever medical attention even then that would have been iffy at best.
Click to expand...

You are seemingly very good at question dodging, so I'll pose it again:


"You've yet to tell us if you've actually read Picknett's book? Or are you simply dismissing it out of hand?"

Please don't respond if once again, you don't answer that direct question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom