kcdad

btw Tiger Woods is ALSO the offspring of the "Holy Ghost of God". (I just love that you keep using the word GHOST... it is hilarious!)

kcdad

Actually, yes. History is the record of man's search for meaning... recorded in written or oral forms.

kcdad

And you apparently are pretending that people haven't deified hundreds of other plain ordinary men like Octavian; "The Augustus, God from God, God, Savior of the World." Weren't the Pharaohs deified? Siddartha? Kim Jong Il? George Washington?


I wonder what you think it means when a human being is deified...

Not to mention that the Catholic Church pretends that the Pope, the "supreme bridgebuilder" is the reincarnation of Simon Peter.

kcdad

oooh, are you certain about that? He bled and died. He got angry, wept and ate and drank... I bet he even evacuated his bladder and bowels regularly.
He called himself "son of man", literally "son of adam" which means a human being.
So you want to take someone else's word over his own, presumably?

I think you even quoted this verse: "By man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead..."

Iskander

So it is, I hadn’t noticed. Thanks

aa5874

And was raised from the dead.


According to Valentinus, Jesus had a special digest tract

Fragment E Jesus was considered Divine and did NOT EVACUATE his solids AT all.

Holy Sh....!!

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

You always reject the words of Jesus where he implied he was a God.

Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was and Peter will answer you. And then Jesus.

Matthew 16.15-16Joh 10:30 - But, you seem to suffer from a vision problem. This very verse you quoted make mention of the resurrection.

Your man resurrected. He was a mythical MAN.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition even Jesus said in the NT, "I and my Father are one".

Now, the God of the Jews, the father of Jesus, is no different to any mythical God, so also is his Son. They are ALL one MYTH.

David_M

Because they can't agree on how to interpret scripture?

The Eastern Orthodox church has long rejected to concept of original sin as promulgated in the western denominations.

It also does not seem to be a teaching of the early church fathers but to have possibly originatd with Augustine.

Iskander

Yes, disagreement among Christians is the result of freethinking and it is a good thing.

For those with a mission ,freethinking is anathema since it will impair the message of doom that they feel compelled to deliver: “most senseless” is in the air –beware!

Petergdi

Hardly anyone in my experience believes the sort of quasi-genetic theory of original sin which is regularly explained by the people who disagree with it.

When people say they believe in original sin, it is almost invariably of the G. K. Chesterton sort. It didn't originate with him, he was just particuarly brilliant explaining it.

Peter.

gurugeorge

No, he's saying that a historical Christ as portrayed in the gospels is a senseless proposition, because that entity is not the kind of entity that can exist (for a rational person with a scientific worldview, at least). That's the first claim.

Secondary to that, he's claiming that, while the idea that there might be a historical person at the root of that evident and obvious myth isn't logically self-contradictory, nobody has yet provided any evidence for such, therefore it is "senseless" too.

Most would agree with the first part, it's just the second part people don't agree with - albeit for different reasons.

You (presumably) along with other HJ-ers don't agree with it because you think there is good evidence for a historical human being at the root of the myth; others here would disagree because even if we think the evidence so far presented hasn't been good enough to show there was any historical "Jesus Christ" at all (superhero-like entity or historical human being), unlike the first, more traditionally Christian idea (that there was a superhero-like entity living in Palestine at that time called "Jesus Christ"), the second idea (that the myth of said entity arose around a man called "Jesus Christ" at that time) is not senseless, even if (in our opinion) none of the evidence so far has been good enough to make the idea a solid contender to explain the origins of Christianity.

If it were true that the proposition is senseless, then any explanation for the origins of Christianity would have to be senseless unless it were strictly verifiable through the evidence.

But in a situation where we do not know what percentage of evidence has survived, what it's composition is relative to the amount of evidence that could theoretically have survived, that just doesn't make sense.

It would only make sense if we could be assured that all the evidence relative to proving the truth of origins had survived. Then only one origin story would make sense in view of the evidence, and all others would be senseless.

But, for example, the true origins of Christianity may not even be provable at all, because the evidence that might (had it survived) have proved it beyond a doubt, simply hasn't survived.