Who Was Jesus? What Did He Teach? Letting His Words Do The Talking!

Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear,"

Mother Teresa
 
kush groove

kush groove

Active Member
What color was the skin of the man who bared the cross......
No matter how many lashes they couldn't beat if off......

Kanye West

Your bible says jesus had skin like burned bronze and hair like wool....hmmmmmmm interesting......but for some reason that doesn't mactch the picture in my living room

But anyway jesus is the son and its an old story out of egypt to teach children science...................adults believing in jesus is equivalent to an adult believing in the easter bunny
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
What part was blasphemy?
Click to expand...
The original crime of blasphemy was saying the holy, secret name of God, YHWH. One of the reasons the pronunciation is lost to history is because saying his holy name was reserved for special occasions and only by a high priest. Since the destruction of the Temple, there is no more legitimate reason for a priest to pronounce His name and hence the correct pronunciation is no longer known. This is why Jews will use euphemisms such as HaShem (the Name) and Adonai (Lord) when they refer to the one God.
This is also the reason the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy. It was NOT as most Xtians think, because he claimed to be God but because he spoke this forbidden name when he said, "before Abraham was born, I AM."
Since this is a translation to Greek, the point gets lost. Most bibles also translate God's name when he speaks it to Moses in the form of the burning bush. In Hebrew, you can see that God clearly tells Moses his true name, YHWH, but your English translation probably says, "I AM that I AM."
So really, the only thing Jesus really said is that YHWH is eternal, he did not say he is YHWH but it was against the law of blasphemy nonetheless.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
Mindphuk, you don't actually think he questions the things said in the videos do you? Lol..

I know you don't, it's a rhetorical question.

If only he used his rational thought processes when it comes to religion. It's the same old compartmentalization that we see all to often in the religious..
Flying spaghetti monster? That's just stupid! An invisible man who created everything that can't be tested and there is no actual way to prove his existence? Yeah, I'll buy that..
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
mindphuk said:
The original crime of blasphemy was saying the holy, secret name of God, YHWH. One of the reasons the pronunciation is lost to history is because saying his holy name was reserved for special occasions and only by a high priest. Since the destruction of the Temple, there is no more legitimate reason for a priest to pronounce His name and hence the correct pronunciation is no longer known. This is why Jews will use euphemisms such as HaShem (the Name) and Adonai (Lord) when they refer to the one God.
This is also the reason the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy. It was NOT as most Xtians think, because he claimed to be God but because he spoke this forbidden name when he said, "before Abraham was born, I AM."
Since this is a translation to Greek, the point gets lost. Most bibles also translate God's name when he speaks it to Moses in the form of the burning bush. In Hebrew, you can see that God clearly tells Moses his true name, YHWH, but your English translation probably says, "I AM that I AM."
So really, the only thing Jesus really said is that YHWH is eternal, he did not say he is YHWH but it was against the law of blasphemy nonetheless.
Click to expand...

These legalistic tendencies that they used to persecute Jesus are exactly why Jesus was the harshest with them.
 
sk'mo

sk'mo

Active Member
Japanfreak said:
I know but what I'm suggesting is that we don't have any clue to what Jesus actually wrote because he didn't put it down to paper. Not saying that what is written is bad, just that I don't accept it as from the horses mouth so to speak.
Click to expand...
The same is true of Socrates. Guy never wrote a damn thing!
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
sk'mo said:
The same is true of Socrates. Guy never wrote a damn thing!
Click to expand...
Yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If people claimed Socrates was the son of god and performed miracles, we would require extraordinary evidence.
Whether Socrates wrote philosophical texts or not is not extraordinary, for it wouldn't matter if he wrote them or someone else wrote them. There are no extraordinary claims. People write things every day.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Tym said:
Mindphuk, you don't actually think he questions the things said in the videos do you? Lol..

I know you don't, it's a rhetorical question.

If only he used his rational thought processes when it comes to religion. It's the same old compartmentalization that we see all to often in the religious..
Flying spaghetti monster? That's just stupid! An invisible man who created everything that can't be tested and there is no actual way to prove his existence? Yeah, I'll buy that..
Click to expand...

80% of the worlds population says they have experienced God in some way or another. So that is all the testing I need. I also experience the presence of God on a regular basis. You are the 20% minority that refuses to accept it. Maybe your the one that is blinded to the facts.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
80% of the worlds population says they have experienced God in some way or another. So that is all the testing I need. I also experience the presence of God on a regular basis. You are the 20% minority that refuses to accept it. Maybe your the one that is blinded to the facts.
Click to expand...
Another Logical Fallacy.
Argumentum ad populum

From Iron Chariots Wiki

(Redirected from Ad populum)
Jump to: navigation, search
Argumentum ad populum ("argument from popular appeal", "appeal to the majority") is a logical fallacy whereby a proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by large numbers of people.
Contents

[hide]

[edit]
Examples


[edit]
Discussion

Argumentum ad populum comes in two varieties:

  1. The first is to argue from sheer numbers: "Everyone knows X, so X must be true". This argument is appealing because in many cases, what "everyone knows" is true: the Sun rises in the east, not the south; grass is green; and George Washington was the first President of the United States. This is effective because it pressures people to be "normal". People have a desire to be like their peers. Thus tactics involving alienation are often used to bully people into submission, this is often a sign of a bad argument.
  2. The second variety is "snob appeal": A proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by an elite or distinguished group of people. This argument often appears in advertising, (e.g., "Z Cola: The official soft drink of the Big-Time Sports Event").
[edit]
Counter-apologetics

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy because the fact that many people believe something does not make it true. For many years, most people believed that the Earth was the center and most important feature of the universe. Millions of people believe that astrology works. Neither is true.
One special case is that in which a statement is said to be true because it is believed by most of the experts in the field (9 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X toothpaste!). For example, if most astronomers say that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way around, then that is very likely to be true. In this case, however, we are trusting the judgment of people who have carefully studied the matter. In effect, we are trusting that the experts have reached their conclusions through valid arguments based on careful observation, so there is no need for us to research the matter ourselves. This type of argument is often reliable, but not always. After all, scientific knowledge is never perfect and complete. However, for most "mature" scientific fields, the likelihood of a complete reversal of views — such as moving the Earth from the center of the universe to the outskirts of one unremarkable galaxy among millions — is incredibly, and ever increasingly, small.
[edit]
See also


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top