Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:So did Buddha on his way to enlightenment, Mohammed as he preached through the nations, priests of Brahma as they went through their priestly-stuff. It's not new. It's like drinking Pepsi because of an ad saying Pepsi is better than Coke.
I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming. That's where Jesus came. There's a loophole here.
Jesus claimed to be God; Buddha claimed that there was no God as we understand him. Jesus healed people in front of witnesses; Buddha died of exposure, unable to heal even himself. Jesus worked miracles and fed multitudes; Buddha denied himself and starved his own body.
I'd rather follow a God that loved even though he was rejected and despised, fed the people, comforted them and healed rather than one that isolated and denied and withered. Jesus was full of confidence and in control in every situation to top it off.
I am quite sure Buddha believed in himself. It did not help him much. Whereas Jesus's corpse could not be found, he rose from the dead. The actual evidence of the tomb where Jesus was buried and is now empty is still present.
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming. That's where Jesus came. There's a loophole here.
Jesus claimed to be God; Buddha claimed that there was no God as we understand him. Jesus healed people in front of witnesses; Buddha died of exposure, unable to heal even himself. Jesus worked miracles and fed multitudes; Buddha denied himself and starved his own body.
I'd rather follow a God that loved even though he was rejected and despised, fed the people, comforted them and healed rather than one that isolated and denied and withered. Jesus was full of confidence and in control in every situation to top it off.I am quite sure Buddha believed in himself. It did not help him much. Whereas Jesus's corpse could not be found, he rose from the dead. The actual evidence of the tomb where Jesus was buried and is now empty is still present.
I think you are confusing Buddha with John the Baptist here. Buddha is regarded as the Supreme Enlightened One and taught about the liberation of self, while John the Baptist is the one saying that someone higher than him was coming, one whom he was not fit even to tie the sandals of.
In the Bible, Jesus never outright claimed to be God. Jesus often claimed or implied that he was the Son of God, it was human philosophers who came up with the Trinity (also not ever mentioned in the Bible). Jesus may being healing the people through the body, but it can also be said that Buddha heals the mind, which is what is important in Buddhism. And note that Jesus was the one that died at the age of 33, dying of his wounds anyway. Jesus did too denied himself and starved his own body, at the time of meditation where he was supposedly tempted by the devil himself.
I am also quite sure that Jesus believed in himself too, yet he ended up being betrayed by Judas, banished by the people whom he tried to heal and save, suffered under the hands of his enemy and died of his wounds. Whatever you mean by not helping, you were extremely vague at this point. You should also know that the historical records of that time said that the disciples supposedly stole the body away and tried to spread to the public that Jesus has resurrected.
And I understand that you are comparing with Buddhism because that was what I mentioned earlier, but there probably are other religions out there with similar stories such as in the New Testament. And from my criticism of Pascal's Wager to Badzmaro in a previous post, when you do choose a religion, you should choose a religion with the strictest of God(s), since the one that loves you anyway would forgive you even if you did choose a wrong religion, wouldn't he/she?
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:
You should also know that the historical records of that time said that the disciples supposedly stole the body away and tried to spread to the public that Jesus has resurrected.
What historical records said this?
The Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian record of the events at that time. While I am not saying that this article is true, I am trying to push across the idea there may be more to the story than simply Christ rising from the grave.
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:
The Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian record of the events at that time. While I am not saying that this article is true, I am trying to push across the idea there may be more to the story than simply Christ rising from the grave.
According to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu), under the section of 'historicity', it says that: 'Scholarly consensus, according to van Voorst, dismisses it as a reliable source for the historical Jesus' .
Since the Toledoth Yeshu is not a reliable historical record, it provides no support at all to the hypothesis that 'the disciples supposedly stole the body away and tried to spread to the public that Jesus has resurrected'
The hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead, given all the historical facts, is still the best hypothesis.
if you google a little further, you will also find that Dr. van Voorst is also a Christian pastor said to possibly have a apologetic agenda, which is to try provide a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views. Hence, his conclusions to the subject may be bias due to his religious standing.
I do understand that the Toledoth Yeshu may not be a perfectly reliable source, but one has to understand that the bible is a collection of recordings by people following the Abrahamic faith, then chosen by the Church to be presented to the world. There are other books of that time which weren't chosen to be placed in the bible, due to their conflicting views with the chosen books.
Then how does the Church know that the books they chosen are true? Because the books say so. But how are the books true? Because the Church said so. Notice something here? As said earlier, this is like you drinking Pepsi because of a Pepsi ad saying Pepsi is better than Coke.
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming. That's where Jesus came. There's a loophole here.
Jesus claimed to be God; Buddha claimed that there was no God as we understand him. Jesus healed people in front of witnesses; Buddha died of exposure, unable to heal even himself. Jesus worked miracles and fed multitudes; Buddha denied himself and starved his own body.
I'd rather follow a God that loved even though he was rejected and despised, fed the people, comforted them and healed rather than one that isolated and denied and withered. Jesus was full of confidence and in control in every situation to top it off.I am quite sure Buddha believed in himself. It did not help him much. Whereas Jesus's corpse could not be found, he rose from the dead. The actual evidence of the tomb where Jesus was buried and is now empty is still present.
ThunderFbolt was correct, you are confused. Buddha had never said someone higher than him is coming because in Buddhism, nobody is higher or lower than Buddha. What he said was another Buddha will be coming to preach. Though Buddhism does not promote miracles but that does not mean miracles do not happen to its followers. There are many miracles happening to the people around me but I am not going to elaborate because Buddha does not wish his followers to promote miracles, He wanted us just simply practise what he taught. Just follow your heart, believe in whatever you are comfortable with.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:ThunderFbolt was correct, you are confused. Buddha had never said someone higher than him is coming because in Buddhism, nobody is higher or lower than Buddha. What he said was another Buddha will be coming to preach. Though Buddhism does not promote miracles but that does not mean miracles do not happen to its followers. There are many miracles happening to the people around me but I am not going to elaborate because Buddha does not wish his followers to promote miracles, He wanted us just simply practise what he taught. Just follow your heart, believe in whatever you are comfortable with.
I'm not so bothered about the history of events so yeah don't talk so much on what actually happened. I may not know it well but I'm more concerned about the lives, both of them lived.
My bad on the part I said Jesus was God, Jesus was the Son of God, its like 1am dude then.
The main point is my last 3 paragraphs.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:ThunderFbolt was correct, you are confused. Buddha had never said someone higher than him is coming because in Buddhism, nobody is higher or lower than Buddha. What he said was another Buddha will be coming to preach. Though Buddhism does not promote miracles but that does not mean miracles do not happen to its followers. There are many miracles happening to the people around me but I am not going to elaborate because Buddha does not wish his followers to promote miracles, He wanted us just simply practise what he taught. Just follow your heart, believe in whatever you are comfortable with.
Life isnt around miracles. Read my last 3 paragraphs intently again.
I said I was not going to interfere here anymore but -.- HELLO? NO ONE IS GOING TO WIN IF ALL OF YOU KEEP GIVING UNRELIABLE CLAIMS AND SOURCES LIKE THAT- AS I SAID, DEBATE ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE PROPHECIES!
ThunderFbolt your claims about those stuff is UNRELIABLE . If the disciples stole Jesus' body, then where did they put it? Also, there were more than 50 witnesses who saw Jesus the 4th day after he was persecuted and killed on the cross. It CANNOT be a hallucination, since many people saw it The witnesses were also purely peasants, even the disciples themselves and not LAWYERS. Also, Jesus appeared for 40days, hallucinations don't happen to multiple people, and neither do any actually last for more than a day. But people witnessed Jesus and his living body for 40days. Another thing is that the disciples THEMSELVES WERE KILLED AND PERSECUTED WHILE SPREADING THE NEW FAITH. And how were they killed? WORSE OFF THAN JESUS. From being beheaded to being boiled alive! With some logic, no one would go to that extent to lose their life to spread a LIE! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR LOGICS? DID YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE OR WAS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT MADE UP OF PURELY HEARSAY?
About the books of the bible. Actually, the bible is made of 66books by 44men. These 44 men did not know each other, and they were from 3 different continents. How were the books put together into one? Actually, there was more than 66books written about witnessing God. However, only books with the criteria of being witnesses of christ and certain key people were selected for the book. The books WERE NOT CHOSEN AT RANDOM.
Dr. van Voorst may be a Christian but he is a Christian scholar & he is right in saying that scholarly consensus dismisses it as a reliable source for the historical Jesus. According to Princeton University's Program in Judaic Studies website, with reference to the Toledoth Yeshu (http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html) :
In academic circles, the book has been dismissed as a reliable source for historical events and was at best considered as “a polemical satire against Christianity based on inversions of New Testament narratives” (David Biale), or, at worst, as “an instructive evidence of a regrettable popular psychosis” (Bernát Heller).
As for your question as to how the Church knew which books to include in the Bible, it's simple. Let's restrict the discussion to the New Testament [NT] for now. It comprises of the gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Matthew, Mark & John make up Jesus' inner circle & were all his apostles. Luke was also prominent in the early church. The rest of the New Testament was mainly written by Paul. There's the letter/s of James & Peter also, who were apostles & thus leaders in the early church. These people all wrote letters and historical records for the early church, which became the Bible. The early church all lived within the time of the NT writers thus it's easy for them to know who the 12 apostles were and which were their writings/letters.
Or picture this: Suppose the leadership of a mega church in Singapore were to send out a circular to all its member cells, departments, etc. People in the church would easily recognise it as from their leaders. But suppose you, ThunderFbolt, were to try to masquerade as one of their leaders and spread a heretical doctrine, don't u think it would be easy for their members to tell that u're really not one of their leaders?
To use your soft drink analogy, a Coke fan can easily tell a Coke [the Bible- the real thing, pun intended, haha] from something close like the Pepsi, & even more so from something so much different like F&N orange [Toledoth Yeshu]
Anyone interested in joining a Christian apologetics fellowship group [not cyber one but real life meet up] please message me with your email so we can talk further.
Since you guys here are so pissed off for some reason, I am going to stop here for a moment and post my answer a few days later. It was never my intention to "win" or "lose" this discussion, as this is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, which is a means to both show my views and see other people's views, as opposed to a debate that decides the future of all mankind. Nothing we say here will put a blot in history anyway.
Atheists are actually part of the bible's prophecy. From revelations, during the end times, life would go on as normal until suddenly disaster comes and kill 1/4 of mankind. Ever since the disciples started spreading christianity, and in the last few centuries, christians did not dare to disbelief in God, until in the 1800s when Darwinism came about, and in this century the big-bang theory. Thus, In britain alone only 33% of the population actually believe in the Judeo-christian God now. In the past century Britain had almost it's full population believeing in Christ.
I think ThunderFbolt has contributed fairly, substantially & maturely to this forum. I am not pissed off at him.
What makes him think people are pissed off at him =/
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:I'm not so bothered about the history of events so yeah don't talk so much on what actually happened. I may not know it well but I'm more concerned about the lives, both of them lived.
My bad on the part I said Jesus was God, Jesus was the Son of God, its like 1am dude then.
The main point is my last 3 paragraphs.
No offence please.I am not trying to be funny but trying to understand more about christianity and your thoughts. Since Jesus is God or Son of God, why he did not appear to humans as God but reborn (should I call reborn or do you christians say that he was reborn?) as human. Do christians believe in rebirth? If I see from a buddhist angle point of view, he is God but reborn as human. Your thoughts please.
reborn means to be born again, or to be born a second time. Jesus was born of Mary, Christians do not say He is reborn because, God was only born in the flesh as Jesus once on earth.
If by rebirth u mean reincarnation, then no, Christians do not believe in reincarnation.
As to why God appeared to humans as a human (Jesus) & not as God, there are many aspects to this answer, but one of the major reasons is that God's plan was for Jesus to come to earth to die/pay for our sins.
chc said chiristanity
is not a religion at all le
Actually Christianity is a religion, going by the usual understanding/meaning of the word religion, that is a a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. But I know what some people mean when they say that Christianity is not a religion [though I don't think they should use the word religion that way]. They mean that Christianity is not like most religions, where good works earn your way to heaven. Also Christianity is unique in that it has a personal loving God who wants to have a personal relationship with humans, unlike many other religions where u have often times (angry) god/s who one must appease. Because of these unique beliefs in Christianity, some people say Christianity is not a religion.
Originally posted by Larryteo:I said I was not going to interfere here anymore but -.- HELLO? NO ONE IS GOING TO WIN IF ALL OF YOU KEEP GIVING UNRELIABLE CLAIMS AND SOURCES LIKE THAT- AS I SAID, DEBATE ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE PROPHECIES!
ThunderFbolt your claims about those stuff is UNRELIABLE . If the disciples stole Jesus' body, then where did they put it? Also, there were more than 50 witnesses who saw Jesus the 4th day after he was persecuted and killed on the cross. It CANNOT be a hallucination, since many people saw it The witnesses were also purely peasants, even the disciples themselves and not LAWYERS. Also, Jesus appeared for 40days, hallucinations don't happen to multiple people, and neither do any actually last for more than a day. But people witnessed Jesus and his living body for 40days. Another thing is that the disciples THEMSELVES WERE KILLED AND PERSECUTED WHILE SPREADING THE NEW FAITH. And how were they killed? WORSE OFF THAN JESUS. From being beheaded to being boiled alive! With some logic, no one would go to that extent to lose their life to spread a LIE! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR LOGICS? DID YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE OR WAS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT MADE UP OF PURELY HEARSAY?
About the books of the bible. Actually, the bible is made of 66books by 44men. These 44 men did not know each other, and they were from 3 different continents. How were the books put together into one? Actually, there was more than 66books written about witnessing God. However, only books with the criteria of being witnesses of christ and certain key people were selected for the book. The books WERE NOT CHOSEN AT RANDOM.
hi Larryteo, please read below and for discussion:
The 3 faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam were born from an account of a man Abraham, who claimed that a god appeared before him. This is the start of a monotheism faith. Since then, a lot of religious scriptures were written. Many accounts of event were shared among the 3 faiths and sub-sects.
Within Christianity, it was split into many separate churches and denominations. Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE) was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. He needed a single canon to be agreed by all the Christian leaders in order to help him unify his empire. The assembled copy of the christian bible was gathered in the council of Nicaea and was agreed it was the word of god. Of course they were many scriptures deemed not suitable for assembly into the bible and they were not considered.
Please say which part you agree or not disagree. For serious discussion only.
Originally posted by laffin123
He needed a single canon to be agreed by all the Christian leaders in order to help him unify his empire. The assembled copy of the christian bible was gathered in the council of Nicaea and was agreed it was the word of god. Of course they were many scriptures deemed not suitable for assembly into the bible and they were not considered.
Simple question, simple answer. A quick cursory reading at Wiki tells me that The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It had to do with resolving 5 particular doctrines/issues plus some other matters. They are, to quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea):
The agenda of the synod included:
- The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;
-The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
-The Meletian schism;
-The validity of baptism by heretics;
-The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
Originally posted by apologist:Originally posted by laffin123
He needed a single canon to be agreed by all the Christian leaders in order to help him unify his empire. The assembled copy of the christian bible was gathered in the council of Nicaea and was agreed it was the word of god. Of course they were many scriptures deemed not suitable for assembly into the bible and they were not considered.
Simple question, simple answer. A quick cursory reading at Wiki tells me that The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It had to do with resolving 5 particular doctrines/issues plus some other matters. They are, to quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea):
The agenda of the synod included:
- The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;
-The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
-The Meletian schism;
-The validity of baptism by heretics;
-The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
apologist,
your recommendation on this wikipedia page say this line ".. it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea ..." under the overview section. Doesn't it concern the canon of scripture ?
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:Of course I would prefer my children to respect me from their hearts (or conscience, or brains, whatever). However, I don't go condemning the children who don't respect me to the pits of Hell for all eternity. That isn't being a good father.
You are not a good father too if you allow children to disrespect you.
A father loves all his children but must discipline them when they are bad.
John 3 : 16-17
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Light has come to the world and is within man's reach. Man must choose either light or darkness. He cannot love darkness(evil) and yet wish for eternal life.
I somehow feel we are clearing up the mess martial has made.