Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican
The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist claimed on Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tican.html

The chief exorcist is a priest and he is saying how hard the Vatican fights to OPPOSE Satan.
You have taken that report in EXACTLY the opposite way it was written. The Vatican, it says, acknowledges the existence of Satan and is actively fighting Satan through exorcisms. Satan is opposed to the Vatican - but the way you have presented it makes it look as if Satan is operating in the Vatican as part of the Roman Catholic Church.

So why has the devil found refuge in the Vatican?

Continue reading the article:

The evil influence of Satan was evident in the highest ranks of the Catholic hierarchy, with "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus and bishops who are linked to the demon," Father Amorth said.

Also:

In November 1996, during the papacy of John Paul II (d. 2005) and under the seeming appearance of his approval, allegations were made by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo (b. 1930) that members of the Catholic hierarchy were secretly involved in formal Satanic worship, and these stunning claims were confirmed by eminent Vatican insider, Dr. Malachi Martin (1921-1999). Later, a new round of allegations about Satanic activities in the Vatican surfaced in Rome that the media described as ‘explosive’, and the newspaper headline at that time said: ‘Satanism Is Practiced In Vatican!’. The article said this, in part:

In recent weeks, a firestorm has been raging in Italy. The controversy revolves around the statements of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, who made formal allegations that satanic activity is taking place inside the Vatican. When questioned by the Italian press about the allegations, he said that he stood by them.

(Subject: ‘Satanism Is Practiced in Vatican’; Sunday February 28, 1999, 4:49 am; http://www.fatima.org/satanism.html)


http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/sat ... he-vatican

Why else do you believe so many priests are paedophiles?

[Claire Evans]

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

Perpetual fear and guilt are the barriers you speak of.

1 John 4:18

Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.

Regarding guilt:

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons so many of God's children are living defeated lives, is because of guilt. Guilt is one of Satan's biggest weapons against us. It tears us down, it makes us feel dirty, unworthy, robs of us of our faith and confidence in Christ Jesus. Jesus not only came to cleanse us from our sins, but also set us free from the guilt of our sins. If you want to live a life of spiritual victory, you need to have a conscience freed from the guilt of your past. 1 Timothy 3:9, "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience."

http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/dealing_with_guilt.php

Many people would do anything not to believe in Jesus so they would just say it is a hoax or it was done by a magician.

I’ve already said that this would not have happened in my case. God should know that.

And God knows that to truly know Him is to believe without seeing.

And yet, he used to be active all the time. I sought, but did not find. I guess in order for your faith to be “sound� it MUST be my fault. How convenient.

Yes, you sought by asking for scientific proof. That is not the way it works. You want evidence without any faith involved.

This came AFTER I began to lose my faith.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

Truly, you don't need these things to believe. Why must you behave like a doubting Thomas?

I am a product of my education, background and biology. As a Catholic, I began to lose faith. Just about any sign would have kept me locked in. None ever came.

I'm not surprised you lost faith as a Catholic. The Catholic denomination is based on devil worship starting with the Vatican.

Lol! Devil worship? Really? So much for “Judge not lest ye be judged�, I guess.

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic.

They are obviously not Satanic. Yet rituals have Satanism in it. That is due to the Vatican.

You are categorically wrong, lol. Laughably so.

Ask yourself this question: Does it make sense for the Catholic faith to RAIL AGAINST Satan, vices, sin and selfishness in almost every mass, if it was surreptitiously supporting the devil and his ilk?

Of course. Satan comes in the name of love. Do you think he is going to come in the name of hate? He wants to draw people in and deceive not drive them away. So why not merge evil with Christianity to deceive? And quite frankly, the RCC doesn't set a very good example. The Pope is rich as hell. There is paedophilia in the church. Yet because Christianity in the Bible is taught, these things result in the RCC to be less challenged.

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

Why not? You haven't exactly discussed what is laughable about it.

If there was a benevolent god, then I would have thought he might have made a little effort (as he has done in The Book) to keep me “saved�.

Self entitled again.

Maybe. But the fact remains. The logic (you employ to justify his absence) is inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent being. And it is inconsistent with the god character portrayed in the OT.

Thanks for the admission. Your sense of self entitlement is the barrier you set up between you and God.

You are wrong. I am here discussing this in good faith, and being open about my past. It is a shame that you have such a preconceived conclusion about what MUST be, that you cannot accept what I am telling you is the truth.

It is based on what you said. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not demand signs or miracles from God proving His existence?

And yes, God, as an benevolent deity as portrayed in the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh because they are different beings.

Please elaborate.

Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Yahweh was the god of war. Jesus didn't allow the stoning of the prostitute when it was Yahweh's law to stone adulterers. Why?

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status and pray to her. Never in the Bible is that encouraged.

It takes time to see how He works in one's life. Why not put in the effort inside of wanting to take shortcuts like seeing miracles?

I did put in an effort, as a Catholic. Now, I know better. No effort needed. It is all a fiction. However, the point was, I was making an effort. You see, if you want to invalidate Catholicism as a valid religion, I can easily say they can level the same charge at you, then all we are left with is, “Who is the True Christian�? And is there a real answer to that question?

You just said it yourself. No effort was needed to lose one's faith. In other words, you did not put in the effort to persist.

You misunderstand. I put in the effort and once my faith was lost, a clinical self-examination revealed why it was lost. And that required very little effort.

What clinical self examination did you do that lost your faith that was so convincing?

I reflected on what weakened my faith and why. And, on why I believed what I did as a Catholic.

Then I sought to learn more about my faith, religion and science.

I find that the effort and learning I put into my belief system at this time of my life is more than many people ever put into learning about why they believe what they believe, and why they still are the same religion that they were brought up in.

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t llike in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

But of course it is going to hide itself and not say outwardly it is based on paganism. It was what they belief that is a different story. Mary is Isis/Semiramis to them.

Tell me, why has the church adopted so many pagan practices like Easter eggs and Christmas trees?

That is not biblical.

Says you. They take the bible just as serious as you do.

No True Scotsman Fallacy comes to mind now.

Then where on earth did they get the idea that Mary is the Mother of God?? It is absolutely nowhere in the Bible.

Because they believe in the Trinity. That Jesus is also god, so Mary is the mother of Jesus/god.

Silly concept I know. But it is what they (and I at one time) believe. But certainly not satanic, and certainly not devil worshipping, lol.

Pagan trinity in Egypt is Isis, Horus and Osiris. It is made of three separate entities. Isis preceded Horus, her son and a god, obviously, and Mary being covertly Isis in Catholicism, she is also considered greater than God. Isis is a mother to a god, Horus, hence Mother of God.

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, you did. You thought that should should have had miraculous signs to keep you in the faith. You thought that before you lost your faith, obviously. That's self entitlement.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

And it is because of self entitlement that you thought that if you could not get what you wanted from God, then you will say, "Stuff it."


No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

Wow. Can you tell me more about myself? I am finding this laughably enlightening.

I am only coming to this conclusion based on what you are telling me. You can take it or leave it.

So, you can (in good faith) believe me when I tell you there was no sense of entitlement. There was only faith (in god, Jesus and my parents), an inquisitive mind and eventually higher education.

Can you really tell me that there weren't any other factors that make your faith decline other than not getting the miracles you wanted.

Wow. Are you even reading my posts? I did not seek any miracles while I was a believer.

Then why did you write this:

You assume miracles would do the trick.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

Because a miracle when my faith waned would have saved me, and certainly one when I was a believer (without doubts) would have prevented me from letting those doubts win out.

I would have thought this explanation obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

There for go. You thought that God should have made concessions for you so that you wouldn't leave the faith. That is trying to force His hand. Being doubtful is part of the refining of the faith. The disciples had doubts even when they saw Jesus doing miracles! Every Christian experiences doubts in their life-time. They just have to persist in their faith trusting in God so to put aside the temptation to doubt.

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate. It is the condemnation of gays that is the problem.

So, can you consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong?

No. Do you consider you may be wrong?

Of course. That is why I read and learn more about my faith and all religions. I find it very unwise to think I can’t be wrong. You shouldn’t either.

Okay, so Jesus may be the Son of God to you?

I acknowledge I may be wrong about there not being a god, but until I see reasonable evidence showing otherwise I will behave and act as if there is no god, so therefore, he cannot be the son of god. Much like you do not believe in the Hindu god.

Okay. But I believe Hindu gods to have some truth in their existence.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me? Why didn't you trust me enough in those in those days you thought I wasn't? If you had persisted, you would have found the answers you sought."

That has been the case with me. Yet I didn't say, "Well, the response is not coming, I must else well move on." We cannot demand things of God. He has His own way and time of doing things. We must just have faith.

So says every faith on earth. I was brought up Catholic, by virtue of my birth. As I imagine you are the same faith now that you were brought up in (if not, please tell me more). You say “have faith�, but what you really mean is “have faith in the religion you were brought up in�. Because, as you say above: “a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.�

That’s a mighty fine bit of circular reasoning you got there.

I am a Christian in that I believe in Jesus yet I am deviating somewhat from mainstream Christianity due to research. Christianity espouses that God made Satan, I don't believe that. It espouses that the OT is the word of God; I don't believe that. I believe Satan and God are co-creators which is something Christianity doesn't espouse. There is a difference between having faith when on is not sure of God's existence and having faith, or trust in God, knowing He exists. Like a child has faith in his father. No one must have faith in a religion just hoping it's true.

Nonetheless, and despite you putting your own spin on Christianity, you remain a Christian as your parents taught you to be.

IMO, this is not a coincidence. It is can be very tough to disrobe the cloak of childhood teachings and indoctrination. I speak from experience.

Just because there are some things wrong in the Christian faith, does it mean I should throw the baby out with the bath water?

It's suddenly God's fault that He lost you.

No, what I am saying is that lost souls of otherwise good people are his responsibility.

In other words, you do believe God is at fault. He didn't help the lost souls.

There are a lot of If’s for me to assign fault, but sure, if we accept as true everything you say, then yes. God is at fault. He set the unfair rules, so yes, he is responsible.

Everything I say? Perhaps due you own lack of understanding you believe it is His own fautl.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.


That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you? So if we suppose that aliens caused the floods, which ancient texts espouse, does that sudden negate the existence of the Holy Spirit? Does that suddenly prove Jesus is not the Son of God? Surely you should know that a lot of truth is mixed with lies?

I didn't say that atheism is the evil realm, either.

The bible certainly does.

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.

This actually isn't referring to atheism as we know it. The non believers were pagan worshipers, as in non believers of Christ, who practised debauchery in their rituals hence abominable works.

There are other passages as well, and we will have to disagree. For the sake of argument, then, do you believe this passage does not apply to atheists? You believe that some can do good?

Of course atheists can do good. As I said, the context of non believers in the Psalm was referring to pagan worshipers not people who didn't believe in any god. I don't think atheists existed then.

It seems as if you don't want to make any effort to know Jesus by changing one's life. Instead you want easy answers by demanding miracles.

Sure, you could say that, if you ignore the 1st 20+ years of my life as a practicing Catholic.

How about we don’t make that assumption?

I make that assumption because nothing Jesus did, which you believed once, was good enough for you.

Just as what Mohammad did once was equally not a good motivator to make me join Islam.

I really wouldn't know what is so appealing about Mohammed.

That is because you were not brought up Islamic.

True, but truly a compassionate Muslim would think there is at least something a bit wrong about Mohammed?

Do you have a specific criticism in mind?


-all the best

Yes, like Mohammed demanding the killing of infidels.

[KenRU]

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

Perpetual fear and guilt are the barriers you speak of.

You are either ignoring (repeatedly) what I am telling you or you are not paying attention.

There was a time when I was a believer with no doubts. Full stop. At that time, there were no barriers, no guilt, no second thoughts. Nada. Zip.

Many people would do anything not to believe in Jesus so they would just say it is a hoax or it was done by a magician.

I’ve already said that this would not have happened in my case. God should know that.

And God knows that to truly know Him is to believe without seeing.

And yet, he used to be active all the time. I sought, but did not find. I guess in order for your faith to be “sound� it MUST be my fault. How convenient.

Yes, you sought by asking for scientific proof. That is not the way it works. You want evidence without any faith involved.

This came AFTER I began to lose my faith.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

Truly, you don't need these things to believe. Why must you behave like a doubting Thomas?

I am a product of my education, background and biology. As a Catholic, I began to lose faith. Just about any sign would have kept me locked in. None ever came.

I'm not surprised you lost faith as a Catholic. The Catholic denomination is based on devil worship starting with the Vatican.

Lol! Devil worship? Really? So much for “Judge not lest ye be judged�, I guess.

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

They are obviously not Satanic. Yet rituals have Satanism in it. That is due to the Vatican.

You are categorically wrong, lol. Laughably so.

Ask yourself this question: Does it make sense for the Catholic faith to RAIL AGAINST Satan, vices, sin and selfishness in almost every mass, if it was surreptitiously supporting the devil and his ilk?

Of course. Satan comes in the name of love. Do you think he is going to come in the name of hate? He wants to draw people in and deceive not drive them away.

Right. Drawing them in by railing against vices. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Please, explain this further. How does teaching kids about the love of Jesus, that sin is bad, and that god is love DRAW ONE INTO a life of Satan worship?

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

Why not? You haven't exactly discussed what is laughable about it.

No, I don’t have to. Riku did a fine job in Post 1085.

Like I said, laughable. You have anything else?

If there was a benevolent god, then I would have thought he might have made a little effort (as he has done in The Book) to keep me “saved�.

Self entitled again.

Maybe. But the fact remains. The logic (you employ to justify his absence) is inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent being. And it is inconsistent with the god character portrayed in the OT.

Thanks for the admission. Your sense of self entitlement is the barrier you set up between you and God.

You are wrong. I am here discussing this in good faith, and being open about my past. It is a shame that you have such a preconceived conclusion about what MUST be, that you cannot accept what I am telling you is the truth.

It is based on what you said. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not demand signs or miracles from God proving His existence?

For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I never demanded anything! I observed after the fact that a miracle/message/sign etc (as a believer) would have easily helped defeat the doubts when they arose.

I can’t make this any more clear. do you understand now?

And yes, God, as an benevolent deity as portrayed in the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh because they are different beings.

Please elaborate.

Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Yahweh was the god of war. Jesus didn't allow the stoning of the prostitute when it was Yahweh's law to stone adulterers. Why?

Well, I agree that the OT is not divinely inspired, nor accurate. Now, if everyone would just admit that the OT is equally not divinely inspired … : )

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t like in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

But of course it is going to hide itself and not say outwardly it is based on paganism. It was what they belief that is a different story. Mary is Isis/Semiramis to them.

Tell me, why has the church adopted so many pagan practices like Easter eggs and Christmas trees?

All of Christianity has some basis, in earlier religions. Virgin births, son of god, etc.

Examples of these can be found in mankind’s religions prior to the advent of Christianity. If you wish to denounce this practice as proof of paganism, then you can denounce the practice of worshipping Christ himself as well (by your standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

That is not biblical.

Says you. They take the bible just as serious as you do.

No True Scotsman Fallacy comes to mind now.

Then where on earth did they get the idea that Mary is the Mother of God?? It is absolutely nowhere in the Bible.

Because they believe in the Trinity. That Jesus is also god, so Mary is the mother of Jesus/god.

Silly concept I know. But it is what they (and I at one time) believe. But certainly not satanic, and certainly not devil worshipping, lol.

Pagan trinity in Egypt is Isis, Horus and Osiris. It is made of three separate entities. Isis preceded Horus, her son and a god, obviously, and Mary being covertly Isis in Catholicism, she is also considered greater than God.

No she is not. You are making stuff up again. Please stop doing that.

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, you did. You thought that should should have had miraculous signs to keep you in the faith. You thought that before you lost your faith, obviously. That's self entitlement.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

And it is because of self entitlement that you thought that if you could not get what you wanted from God, then you will say, "Stuff it."

No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

Wow. Can you tell me more about myself? I am finding this laughably enlightening.

I am only coming to this conclusion based on what you are telling me. You can take it or leave it.

Great, show me where I thought (as a believer) that I was entitled to such a thing?

When you can’t, I expect a retraction.

So, you can (in good faith) believe me when I tell you there was no sense of entitlement. There was only faith (in god, Jesus and my parents), an inquisitive mind and eventually higher education.

Can you really tell me that there weren't any other factors that make your faith decline other than not getting the miracles you wanted.

Wow. Are you even reading my posts? I did not seek any miracles while I was a believer.

Then why did you write this:

You assume miracles would do the trick.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

Because a miracle when my faith waned would have saved me, and certainly one when I was a believer (without doubts) would have prevented me from letting those doubts win out.

I would have thought this explanation obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

There for go. You thought that God should have made concessions for you so that you wouldn't leave the faith.

I thought this AFTERWARDS. Big difference.

Please, follow along.

That is trying to force His hand. Being doubtful is part of the refining of the faith. The disciples had doubts even when they saw Jesus doing miracles!

I wouldn’t have. If the disciples were worthy with doubts, why was I not worthy without doubts?

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.

And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

It is the condemnation of gays that is the problem.

Call it what you want, but hating the sin and not the sinner still makes one less compassionate.

So, can you consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong?

No. Do you consider you may be wrong?

Of course. That is why I read and learn more about my faith and all religions. I find it very unwise to think I can’t be wrong. You shouldn’t either.

Okay, so Jesus may be the Son of God to you?

I acknowledge I may be wrong about there not being a god, but until I see reasonable evidence showing otherwise I will behave and act as if there is no god, so therefore, he cannot be the son of god. Much like you do not believe in the Hindu god.

Okay. But I believe Hindu gods to have some truth in their existence.

Lol, but not the RCC. You are wildly inconsistent.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Why didn't you trust me enough in those in those days you thought I wasn't?

He already knows this answer too. Because the things I was being told were patently not true. That science contradicts what is purported to be true in the bible. And many more reasons. It is quite reasonable and even to be expected what (especially for an omnipotent god) would have happened to me – and many others.

If you had persisted, you would have found the answers you sought."

I have no way of knowing that. No one does. Plus, how was I to know I wasn’t being deceived?

That has been the case with me. Yet I didn't say, "Well, the response is not coming, I must else well move on." We cannot demand things of God. He has His own way and time of doing things. We must just have faith.

So says every faith on earth. I was brought up Catholic, by virtue of my birth. As I imagine you are the same faith now that you were brought up in (if not, please tell me more). You say “have faith�, but what you really mean is “have faith in the religion you were brought up in�. Because, as you say above: “a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.�

That’s a mighty fine bit of circular reasoning you got there.

I am a Christian in that I believe in Jesus yet I am deviating somewhat from mainstream Christianity due to research. Christianity espouses that God made Satan, I don't believe that. It espouses that the OT is the word of God; I don't believe that. I believe Satan and God are co-creators which is something Christianity doesn't espouse. There is a difference between having faith when on is not sure of God's existence and having faith, or trust in God, knowing He exists. Like a child has faith in his father. No one must have faith in a religion just hoping it's true.

Nonetheless, and despite you putting your own spin on Christianity, you remain a Christian as your parents taught you to be.

IMO, this is not a coincidence. It is can be very tough to disrobe the cloak of childhood teachings and indoctrination. I speak from experience.

Just because there are some things wrong in the Christian faith, does it mean I should throw the baby out with the bath water?

It does mean that you should re-evaluate what you believe and why. Which I did. And I found religion and faith as a whole very lacking.

It's suddenly God's fault that He lost you.

No, what I am saying is that lost souls of otherwise good people are his responsibility.

In other words, you do believe God is at fault. He didn't help the lost souls.

There are a lot of If’s for me to assign fault, but sure, if we accept as true everything you say, then yes. God is at fault. He set the unfair rules, so yes, he is responsible.

Everything I say?

Yes, because at this point, I no longer accept the premise as true. So, if, as you say, those are the facts …

Perhaps due you own lack of understanding you believe it is His own fautl.

I can’t know what I don’t know. After all, I did seek answers when I had my doubts, as I was told to do.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

So if we suppose that aliens caused the floods, which ancient texts espouse, does that sudden negate the existence of the Holy Spirit? Does that suddenly prove Jesus is not the Son of God? Surely you should know that a lot of truth is mixed with lies?

Ancient aliens caused the flood? That is new to me, lol.

The truth about religion is simple, imo. It was invented by man as a means to explain that which he couldn’t understand: earthquakes, disease, his origin, mental illness etc.

I didn't say that atheism is the evil realm, either.

The bible certainly does.

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.

This actually isn't referring to atheism as we know it. The non believers were pagan worshipers, as in non believers of Christ, who practised debauchery in their rituals hence abominable works.

There are other passages as well, and we will have to disagree. For the sake of argument, then, do you believe this passage does not apply to atheists? You believe that some can do good?

Of course atheists can do good. As I said, the context of non believers in the Psalm was referring to pagan worshipers not people who didn't believe in any god. I don't think atheists existed then.

Lol, atheists didn’t exist then?

Diagoras of Melos (5th century BC): Ancient Greek poet and sophist known as the Atheist of Milos, who declared that there were no Gods. Denis Diderot (1713–84): editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie. Theodore Drange (1934–): Philosopher of religion and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University.

Atheism was probably quite old: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disb ... s-religion

-all the best

[Clownboat]

Well we are on page 107 and somehow (with a 106 page history I certainly will not trace the steps) we are on astrophysics!


Rather than start another thread I give a summary of my case.


"Resurrection" is at theory that explains some basic historical facts; it itself is not by historical standards a fact. What are the facts? I give what numerous scholars representing a wide range of theological convictions have recognized as historical bedrock; my list is shortened and simplified.

1) A "Yeshua" lived in the first half of the 1st c. in Palestine.

2) This Yeshua was noted for his teaching, and was in his lifetime believed to be a healer and miracle-worker. That is, his actual contemporaries witnessed him performing acts which they interpreted as miraculous.

3) This Yeshua got himself in trouble with the Jewish authorities.

4) This Yeshua was crucifed under the authority of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

5) This Yeshua was buried in a tomb provided by the aristocrat Joseph of Arimathea, late friday night, just before Sabbath.

6) Early Sunday morning, several women disciples arrived at the tomb to apply customary burial preparations; they discovered the tomb empty.

7) Within a little over a month, numerous disciples of Jesus believed that they had, collectively and privately, encountered and fellowshiped with their risen master.

8) A pharisee named Saul persecuted the Yeshua-movement. On his way to Damascus, he had an experience in which he believed that very same Yeshua appeared to him. This experience led to his conversion and participation in the ministry.


A literal resurrection is one explanation for the above. No doubt there are others. From my perspective, apart from religious prejudice or metaphysical convictions, the "literal resurrection" theory does a pretty good job getting in the data.

Don't you think it would be prudent to admit that Saul, according to the story itself was suffering from fever and dehydration (which causes hallucinations).

I find your explanation wanting due to the fact that a sick man hallucinating is all that is needed to make this story. An actual meeting with a god is not the likely story, but you cannot admit that because saying so would cause us all to question why you reject Mohammed's claims about Allah.

You also fail to mention that a guard was set on Saturday. This means that if the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, that a guard was possibly set at an already empty tomb. The story itself talks about a hundred pounds of costly embalming materials used on Jesus.

How is the disciples embalming the body and then bringing it to Galilee on Friday not a consideration? Why a propensity to believe that something supernatural took place when such a belief is not required since the stories themselves provide the details of what might have actually happened.

They had the body on Friday. They embalmed it heavily. They then went to Galilee which would be a logical place to permanently place the body.
Why is there a need to assume a dead body reanimated? Must we abandon logic?

[Clownboat]

I will not retract I have a relationship with God. Just because there's no empirical evidence, doesn't mean there is none at all.

When you make such a fantastical claim such as this, and when you have zero evidence that you are not being fooled or that you are an outright fraud, I cannot believe your claims.

It has been established already that you are willing to believe some pretty outlandish things after all.

I suggest that you continue to blame others for why you are not believable.

[Clownboat]

Didn't say Catholics worshiped the devil. It is just that it has Satanism in it which Catholics obviously don't know about. It's not the Catholic Church per se, like individual ones, but the Vatican and Satanic rituals that they have made. Here is an example:

This is a rather stupid video. It is also one that sells hatred, so you can hardly expect niceness from it. It illustrates the FOUR points when a person makes the sign of the cross. This has nothing to do with a pentacle, a five-pointed star. The hand descends, from head to stomach then to shoulders and describes a perfect cross, which it is intended to do. To associate this devout practice with Satan is a piece of nastiness.

I'm not saying because he is Catholic that he didn't have a desire to know Jesus. I came to this opinion based on prior conversation. However, in general, Catholics believe Mary is more important than Jesus. She is called the "Mother of God". In fact, this suggests God, Himself, is an subordinate of Mary's.

Dear God! This is utter, utter nonsense. When I was eight I KNEW that Catholics do NOT worship Mary. Worship (latria) from where we get the word idolatry, is given to GOD ALONE. Catholic catechism. Hyperdulia is the honour - NOT worship - given to Mary for begetting Jesus. And they don't adore statues for, as the Catechism says: "they can neither see, nor hear nor help us."

How can we discuss the resurrection properly when we don't check on the most basic teachings of a Christian religion? If you are going to discard or demean a set of beliefs, it is incumbent on you to find out from truthful people what those beliefs are.

Catholics believe that Jesus rose "on the third day," and later "ascended into heaven" whence he will come again to "judge the living and the dead." Does that differ greatly from your own view of the resurrection, etc.?

My church use to bad mouth Catholics too. Certainly not to the degree that Claire does of course, but they were treated like lesser Christians for the most part.

It seems to be a way for a cult to strengthen their perceived correctness in the eyes of the cult followers. It also helps to create an Us vs Them attitude that cults need to create unity within the group.

Clownboat,

I was brought up Catholic and was taught that all sects of Christianity were still serving Christ and God (though they weren't getting their Sacraments and that is a problem, lol). I do not recall ever being told that other denominations were devil worshippers or not really Christian.

It wasn't until later in life that I came to realize just how bizarre some other denominations perceived Catholicism to be (deservedly so, lol).

Odd, how the RCC and its followers though seem to bee MORE tolerant than those denominations doing the "demonizing". How utterly ironic.

I guess "judging not" is not followed all that closely in other denominations.

-all the best

To the bold. Oh... it is followed. However, it is more important for a cult to create unity than it is to not judge IMO.

Either way, the 'judge not' is just a cop out IMO. It gets believers out of the tough questions and since they don't seem to know what they base their moral principles on anyways, claiming to not be able to judge is a way out.

Take the married women that has hidden testicles and the chromosomes of a man, but an external vagina. She and her partner were high school sweet hearts and neither of them knew she was actually a man.
Should she divorce, which is a no no, or should she stay in a gay marriage, which is also a no no?
Christian A) - I don't know, I'm not suppose to judge. Now I don't have to think about such real world scenarios and how they go against my religious beliefs.

This is how the 'judge not' gets used.

[Clownboat]

Did she shove it down your throat?

No, but she told me about this place of fire with gnashing of teeth that others will be going to (me also of course if I were to lose my beliefs).
This is brain washing, not necessarily shoving down a throat.

You are just going to have to trust me when I say Jesus is the Son of God.

Sure, says the devil, angel, alien, big foot, demon and the Catholic church is satanic person.

Drunk is an offensive word for having been filled with the Holy Spirit.

That is how we described our being filled. Go away with your worthless rebuttals.

Doesn't making a claim that you can speak in tongues make you unreliable? That's an odd claim.

It is an odd claim isn't it? If you were to pay attention, you would know that I don't make such a claim now days. When I did, yes, I also, like you should be viewed as un-reliable.

I will supply my proof when you prove that you can speak in tongues.

Tongues aren't real. When I did it as a believer, I was indoctrinated to believe that it was a real form of communication. I'm a man now and no longer suffer from this indoctrination, therefore, I cannot prove that anyone has ever really spoken in tongues since I don't believe anyone really has. Can you prove that anyone ever has?

Then why did you say I didn't know what gullible was when I said maybe you were true believers but weren't sure? Now you say that gullible people do not believe everything they are told.

Because you battle with the English language.
Proof... gullible people by definition do NOT believe in everything they are told.

Then why are my claims of the Holy Spirit false but yours automatically are true?

Because my claims are of make believe. We both know that make believe happens in reality. No Holy Spirit claim can be shown to happen in reality.
By definition, real things are more likely to be true than things that cannot even be shown to ever be a reality.

By experiencing it myself. I have seen apparitions, things just appearing before my eyes, night terrors, etc.

I have no doubt that humans have imaginations. I do not doubt that you also have one. I do doubt that you actually saw any real apparition though. Again, you seem to be the type of person that is predisposed to believe in such things.

Well, if it is inane to believe Satan is the source of evil, then where did it come from? A primordial soup?

It's just a word Claire. A word made up to express a bad thing.
Where did it come from? Well, in Christianity, it came from Christians. You see, people I believe have always known what is good or bad (excluding psychopaths obviously). Religions were invented to provide a reason as to why there is good or bad (along with filling other needs). Religions like Christianity invented a sin concept and called such acts 'evil'. They even invented an Adam and Eve story to explain how this concept of evil came about. No primordial soup required, just what we witness in the real world.

Why do you automatically dismiss aliens?

I don't. I do dismiss your claims that Muhammad met with aliens though until you can show that it has any merit.

If you did your research into the Catholic Church, you would know it is Satanic.

You have been educated on this recently.

Ironic in that many Christians don't believe in aliens, yet it is in their own Bible. They like to call them "fallen angels".

Please show that you speak the truth. Show that aliens are fallen angels of a god and inform us on how you came about this information that escapes the rest of us.

Please don't miss the part in bold.

[Clownboat]

Did you consider that the theory of evolution is not all that is made out to be?

You cannot deceive me. I now have quite a bit of knowledge about evolution.
Molecules to man works only on the ignorant. I am no longer ignorant.

Why did I learn about various global flood scenarios and not lose my faith?

Since you asked, I believe it is because you are unthinking and would prefer to amend reality to your pet notions than to ever amend your notions themselves.
Evidence:
"Why do you believe claims about Jesus but not Mohammed?"
- You would prefer to inject aliens into the Mohammed story than to consider the notion that Mohammed made it up (or someone on his behalf).
You have notions to protect.
I on the other hand am open to the gods and aliens and have no preconceived notions that they are real or false.

There are various questions that I don't believe you considered when saying it is God's fault, hypothetically in your case, and nothing to do with you.

Ha ha ha ha ha! More preconceived notions that you MUST protect. You could not have done this at a better time. Thanks for evidencing my claim further!

Have you considered that you misinterpreted God's answers or saw a lack of response immediately as never answering?

You just won't listen will you? I fought tooth and nail to keep my beliefs. And this 'immediately' crap from you is beyond tiring.

Yes, you are right. I do not know your personal circumstances but I ask with every person: what kind of response were you looking for? In what form?

How many times must I tell you?
I prayed for god to use me as he will and to make himself real in my life. I never asked for evidence or for a miracle.

"Oswald Chambers...

Nothing of interest was read.

Here is another thought:

Please stop. I had 2 decades of preaching thrown at me. I don't come here to get preached at by you.

I think you gave up on God too soon.

If you really think this, then from your posting here, I am assured to be right. The last thing I want is to be in agreement with one of your notions after all. What's next, demons, devils, leprechauns, unicorns, aliens and satanic Christian churches? Please.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1084 by Claire Evans]

am not only the wiser to Catholicism. Anyone who does the research can see it. You think John Paul 2 exuded goodness? Like this goodness?

All this shows me that you have not done the slightest iota of research as to the upside down cross. I would have told you about this earlier, but I was waiting to see if you'd mention it. Since you haven't as of yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter

Yes, that is what the Catholics say. I know this claim. I just don't play all my cards at once.

First, you may feel insulted at my accusation of not doing research, but I said that for a reason. How does it feel for someone else to presume they know what you have and have not done?

Did you know about Peter's cross when I first posted the picture of the Pope with the cross or did you do the research subsequently.

Second, the upside down cross is not a Satanic symbol. It was, at first, a symbol of St. Peter, who according to tradition was crucified upside down because he felt he wasn't worthy to be crucified rightside up like Jesus was.
The upside down cross became regarded as a symbol of Satan from anti Christian movements and anti-authoritarian groups. In fact, my hypothetical Christian self would be wondering whether or not you yourself are Christian, in that you are treating one of Christianity's oldest symbols as the emblem of her enemy. Just to head off any accusation that it is a strictly Catholic symbol (and hence of Satan)...check the Wikipedia page again. It shows a photo of a Lutheran church with the upside down cross.
Why is it you believe the upside down cross to be a symbol of Satan?

Peter was said to be crucified upside on an X-shaped cross.

"Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died."




http://www.bibleprobe.com/apostles.htm

Andrew suffered the same fate:

http://assets.rappler.com/612F469A6EA84 ... 140417.jpg

This “X� shaped cross (also known as “St. Andrew’s Cross�) borrowed its name from the Roman numeral ten (“decussis�). Two wooden planks were fastened together in an X configuration and the victim’s were nailed to the cross with arms outstretched on top ends of the X. Their feet were either nailed or tied separately to the bottom ends of the X.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/wh ... sus-cross/

There is absolutely no reference that the Romans used a Crux Commissa upside down. It is not possible because of the need for weight distribution.

So it was clever of the RCC but upon further scrutiny, it is just plain false. So let's argue that this really is Peter's cross. Why are setting aside Jesus? Christianity is about Jesus, not Peter.

Why is the inverted cross considered a symbol of Satan? Because Satanists invert everything good.

Do you not know how evil works?

Perhaps more than yourself, having lived through much evil in my childhood.

People experience physical bad things they can see but the spiritual torment is no laughing matter.

He comes as an angel of light. The Anti-Christ will preach things like peace, goodness, so that people will be known the wiser to what he does and will do.

Yup, that's the standard Christian description of Jesus all right. Heck, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus to be the angel Michael.

In this case, the Anti-Christ will be a counterfeit Christ. Jehovah Witness is based on Freemasonry so, no, it is not Christianity.

[Claire Evans]

Do you not know how evil works? He comes as an angel of light. The Anti-Christ will preach things like peace, goodness, so that people will be known the wiser to what he does and will do.

The difference between our education seems to be that as a Catholic I was instructed in how GOOD works: we spoke of the corporal works of mercy; we were encouraged to feed the hungry and the poor; we were instructed in the Eight Beatitudes; and we were simply told to avoid anything to do with Satan.

Your education seems to have involved learning all about "how evil works".

I guess I missed out an a lot, then. We called our education Christian, by the way. What was yours?

Evil is actually rather a subject avoided in the church even in Anglicanism. People don't like talking about the devil but it is imperative to know how he works. How can one guard against the enemy when one doesn't know him? Imagine going to war and having no clue what your enemy is planning.

I believe one cannot truly know Jesus without knowing the devil. We cannot appreciate the battle between good and evil nor the victory of Christ's resurrection.

So we learnt about good things that Christianity requires but not how the devil works.