Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baidarka · 10-15-2002, 08:06 PM

Bobby
Of course you must be right silly me, I mean spoon bending? How silly! How frivolous!
Turning water into wine, now that is a serious trick worthy of the Lord God!

Bobby · 10-15-2002, 08:15 PM

Bible Humper:
It was just a theory. But, Roman peasants who needed money. You know that they would accept a bribe. Plus, the pharisees hated Jesus so much, that they would do anything to show that Jesus power didn't come from GOD. I still consider it a theory worth looking into, but it is just a theory. I wouldn't lose respect for JESUS if I found out He used a wand since He is the Son of God. About the good magic, bad magic thing; All magic is evil. It all is done by demons. It might seem good, but it really isn't. I know that JESUS didn't use magic because I know that the demons wouldn't give the Son of God power since they hated Him so much.

Bible Humper · 10-15-2002, 08:18 PM

BTW, Baidarka, thanks for that link earlier. Very interesting stuff.

Bible Humper · 10-15-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

It was just a theory. But, Roman peasants who needed money. You know that they would accept a bribe.

That seems like quite an unlikely scenario from the point of view of the Pharisees, how the heck did they bribe the peasants to paint this idea in their tombs without intervention by the religious and secular authorities?

Quote:

I wouldn't lose respect for JESUS if I found out He used a wand since He is the Son of God. About the good magic, bad magic thing; All magic is evil.

You are thinking of "magick", I believe. All supernature is magical, so whether or not a wand was used doesn't matter.

Miracles are magic, but not all magic is a miracle.

Quote:

It all is done by demons. It might seem good, but it really isn't. I know that JESUS didn't use magic because I know that the demons wouldn't give the Son of God power since they hated Him so much.

If Jesus used a wand, wouldn't you assume that that particular wand didn't use demonic power?

Perhaps this wand was powered up by angels!

Bobby · 10-15-2002, 08:42 PM

If JESUS used a wand, I know that the Bible would have something to say about it. But instead of a wand, the Bible says that Jesus got His power from the LORD!

Boro Nut · 10-16-2002, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baidarka:
<strong>Bobby
Did you ever hear of the spoon bending Uri Geller?
?</strong>

No, and it would be too easy to fake. If Uri was bending, how would you know it was the spoon doing it? Its much more likely it was hidden magnets.

Boro Nut

Baidarka · 10-16-2002, 05:58 AM

Boro Nut
Of course Uri is a magician and not a miracle worker. If Jesus existed and if the NT reports of his miracles are based on fact than he too must have been a magician and not a miracle worker. The theatrical nature of his “miracles” tend to confirm this.
The water into wine story describes what would be an obvious and entertaining party trick.
The multiplying loves and fishes would have been grand entertainment for a huge crowd
The story of the lame man passed down into a crowded room from the roof is an example of a spectacular setup for a magic trick.
I am not saying that Jesus was a fraud. What I’m saying is that if the NT description of the miracle working Jesus is accurate than he must have been a fraud.

Lord Asriel · 10-16-2002, 06:12 AM

I think you may have missed Boro's point there. Mind you, it is very easy to miss Boro's points.

Baidarka · 10-16-2002, 06:38 AM

Uzzah-“Also note that jesus is a young boy without a beard in all of them. And there really is no sign of a cross. just funny how things change.”

Not a beardless youth but a Romanized Jesus who shaves. Which brings up the possibility that Jesus may have been Romanized.
When Rabbi Akiva went to Rome he had a debate with a beardless castrato. At some point in the debate Akiva insults the man with “a beard is a mans glory”.
My point is that a shaved Jesus would have been a non-traditionalist. We know that artists have sometimes depicted Jesus as one of their own. We have seen images of African, Chinese and German Jesus(es) so this could just be a Roman depiction of a Roman Jesus, or could it be an early and accurate depiction of the 1st century Romanized magician behind the Jesus story?

Baidarka · 10-16-2002, 06:45 AM

Lord Asriel-“I think you may have missed Boro's point there. Mind you, it is very easy to miss Boro's points.”
Maybe I just don’t speak Boroese. Please translate.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2002, 08:06 PM	#21
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Bobby Of course you must be right silly me, I mean spoon bending? How silly! How frivolous! Turning water into wine, now that is a serious trick worthy of the Lord God!

10-15-2002, 08:15 PM	#22
Bobby Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ME Posts: 12	Bible Humper: It was just a theory. But, Roman peasants who needed money. You know that they would accept a bribe. Plus, the pharisees hated Jesus so much, that they would do anything to show that Jesus power didn't come from GOD. I still consider it a theory worth looking into, but it is just a theory. I wouldn't lose respect for JESUS if I found out He used a wand since He is the Son of God. About the good magic, bad magic thing; All magic is evil. It all is done by demons. It might seem good, but it really isn't. I know that JESUS didn't use magic because I know that the demons wouldn't give the Son of God power since they hated Him so much.

10-15-2002, 08:18 PM	#23
Bible Humper Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,125	BTW, Baidarka, thanks for that link earlier. Very interesting stuff.

10-15-2002, 08:42 PM	#25
Bobby Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ME Posts: 12	If JESUS used a wand, I know that the Bible would have something to say about it. But instead of a wand, the Bible says that Jesus got His power from the LORD!

10-16-2002, 05:58 AM	#27
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Boro Nut Of course Uri is a magician and not a miracle worker. If Jesus existed and if the NT reports of his miracles are based on fact than he too must have been a magician and not a miracle worker. The theatrical nature of his “miracles” tend to confirm this. The water into wine story describes what would be an obvious and entertaining party trick. The multiplying loves and fishes would have been grand entertainment for a huge crowd The story of the lame man passed down into a crowded room from the roof is an example of a spectacular setup for a magic trick. I am not saying that Jesus was a fraud. What I’m saying is that if the NT description of the miracle working Jesus is accurate than he must have been a fraud.

10-16-2002, 06:12 AM	#28
Lord Asriel Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Essex, UK Posts: 467	I think you may have missed Boro's point there. Mind you, it is very easy to miss Boro's points.

10-16-2002, 06:38 AM	#29
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Uzzah-“Also note that jesus is a young boy without a beard in all of them. And there really is no sign of a cross. just funny how things change.” Not a beardless youth but a Romanized Jesus who shaves. Which brings up the possibility that Jesus may have been Romanized. When Rabbi Akiva went to Rome he had a debate with a beardless castrato. At some point in the debate Akiva insults the man with “a beard is a mans glory”. My point is that a shaved Jesus would have been a non-traditionalist. We know that artists have sometimes depicted Jesus as one of their own. We have seen images of African, Chinese and German Jesus(es) so this could just be a Roman depiction of a Roman Jesus, or could it be an early and accurate depiction of the 1st century Romanized magician behind the Jesus story?

10-16-2002, 06:45 AM	#30
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Lord Asriel-“I think you may have missed Boro's point there. Mind you, it is very easy to miss Boro's points.” Maybe I just don’t speak Boroese. Please translate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.