16 Apr '05 16:58>
Originally posted by frogstompWould it not be simpliar for you to provide proof, that JESUS CHRIST,did not exsist.
After reading all that , I reiterate :supply some evidence.
Originally posted by no1marauderThen if you will not accept evidence on the exsistance of CHRIST. And you have no evidence that CHRIST didnot exsist, what are you searching for?
Of course not, it's very hard to prove something doesn't exist: can you PROVE Santa Claus or Zeus don't exist?
Originally posted by chinking58The believers in the Resurrection were a small cult not even consisting of all Christians. Who would bother to debunk it? Does Tacitus saying it was a "pernicious superstition" count?
You are right sir. The fact that some claim the Res. took place is not proof in itself. But an observer from afar, such as ourselves, may consider what is claimed and why it was claimed. Who claimed it? Who did or did not deny the claim? Why was the claim not debunked and disproved at the time?
We know millions of kids actually believe in Santa Cl ...[text shortened]... The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel is a very good start for any one looking for a serious look.
Originally posted by blindfaith101For the proof of the Resurrection that dj2becker promised (read the title of the thread). I am willing to say that Jesus probably existed and lived as a human being about 2000 years ago in the Middle East and that the Gospels are a fair re-creation of his words. I am even willing to say that people can believe he was resurrected if they so chose. But I will not accept that his resurrection is a historical fact that would "stand up in any court of law" without real evidence to support it.
Then if you will not accept evidence on the exsistance of CHRIST. And you have no evidence that CHRIST didnot exsist, what are you searching for?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut in what you just said, you proved it to be true.
For the proof of the Resurrection that dj2becker promised (read the title of the thread). I am willing to say that Jesus probably existed and lived as a human being about 2000 years ago in the Middle East and that the Gospels are a fair re-creation of his words. I am even willing to say that people can believe he was resurrected if they so chose. ...[text shortened]... historical fact that would "stand up in any court of law" without real evidence to support it.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Is this the only article you have ever read? I've read through it a couple of times now, and all it says is that the Gospels are seemingly dissimilar from other myths. However, they are also quite similar in other respects. I'm sure if the time was taken to compare any mythology at random with all others there can be something found in the first th ...[text shortened]... a mythology is different, however, is a far cry from deeming it historical truth.
... --- ...
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's a filthy, bald-faced lie. Geez, no1 have some freaking integrity. The Gnostics were one of the FEW sects that did NOT believe in a literal Resurrection.
It is also a fact that many early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection particulary the Gnostics.
Originally posted by DarfiusYour knowledge of the history of Christianity sucks, Darfius. Try this on for size:
That's a filthy, bald-faced lie. Geez, no1 have some freaking integrity. The Gnostics were one of the FEW sects that did NOT believe in a literal Resurrection.
Paul preached a bodily, literal Resurrection, as did the other Apostles.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're simply lying or have a very messed up source. The Gnostic movement didn't threaten true Christianity until the 2nd century under Valentinus. It was by no means ever the "main sect" of Christianity and in fact it predated Christ and only attempted to embrace Him because of His huge following.
Your knowledge of the history of Christianity sucks, Darfius. Try this on for size:
The early Christian church coalesced into three distinct movements:
The Jewish Christians centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus. Most were killed and scattered after the attack on Jerusalem by the roman Army i ...[text shortened]... ul who you "bear false witness" against; you're violating one of the Commandments, Darfius.
Originally posted by DarfiusQuote a better source, PreacherBoy. The Gnostics put up a huge amount of the early literature of the Church, but zealots like you managed to burn most of it. And the Gospel of Q, a non-Gnostic writing, doesn't mention the resurrection at all! The books that got put in the Bible were chosen by those who believed the resurrection was literal, but there were competing theories. Besides, I never claimed the Gnostics were the "main sect" of Christianity; all I said was that "many early Christians didn't believe in the resurrection" and that is a fact. I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar.
You're simply lying or have a very messed up source. The Gnostic movement didn't threaten true Christianity until the 2nd century under Valentinus. It was by no means ever the "main sect" of Christianity and in fact it predated Christ and only attempted to embrace Him because of His huge following.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Gnostics were never Christians, so you're still a liar. I apologize for calling you filthy, since you probably have excellent hygiene, but you still spread lies like candy.
Quote a better source, PreacherBoy. The Gnostics put up a huge amount of the early literature of the Church, but zealots like you managed to burn most of it. And the Gospel of Q, a non-Gnostic writing, doesn't mention the resurrection at all! The books that got put in the Bible were chosen by those who believed the resurrection was literal, b ...[text shortened]... lieve in the resurrection" and that is a fact. I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar.
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius, have you read any of the scholarly work of Elaine Pagels where she discusses in detail the relationship of the early church to the gnostics?
The Gnostics were never Christians, so you're still a liar. I apologize for calling you filthy, since you probably have excellent hygiene, but you still spread lies like candy.
There is not one shred of proof that the 'Gospel of Q' existed. It is merely a secular theory to explain the Gospels and explain away Jesus' divinity as a concoction.