Me too. I would probably get killed, I think very critical of leaders and they would slay me fast. lol. :/



This is where we differ and I think if anyone just looks at 1 post of mine (out of 20 or so) will see that.



Thanks for the clear up. :)



Yea, she was. She is where the symbol of the Cross for Christianity begun. To the early church (35AD-350AD) the cross was a symbol of pain and suffering but Constantine's mother had a vision? and it changed everything.



I agree. Jesus would be disappointed.



:) Sounds like you've been reading the bible's point of view. Others would say that "Some rabbi's during that time thought that date is when the Messiah was predicted to enter the city, but Jesus showed up on a donkey." Kind of like "Jesus of Nazareth knew about these opinions and decided to act on them."

Also, others say, it wasn't a "triumphant" entry. More like the day was anticipated but then some "other guy shows up". (This shows kind of how the Jews totally rejected Him, even though their own teachings pointed to Him.)

Also, great summary of the historical events surrounding Jesus' death. :)



Yea, I'm familiar with it.



Yea. Gandhi met John G. Lake, a genuine pentecostal Christian. Lake tried to persuade Gandhi but he wouldn't budge.

I'm with Gandhi but the only minor difference, is I think Jesus=God. Despite the crappy following of Christians.

Sad thing is Jesus never said "the pastor will teach you", yet many Christians blindly follow pastors instead of challenging them on their opinions.

So, I sigh with your statement. :/



Actually, I'd love to one day go to China. But as I said before, traveling to a country is a HUGE place and no one has any idea what's happening around the corner. I doubt going to a place will radically change our conversation (except we'd have more common ground of "oh, you went to that coffee shop, or that sweat shop, or that store, etc.")



Smile...I don't want to repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time. But I will (one last time) because it doesn't seem like your listening to this particular point. Just because one has a peaceful history and the other has a chaotic history, doesn't mean ANYTHING about the religion itself. It just shows what the followers do.

I don't think your "test" is a valid test of religions. I think one should look at the leader Himself and go from there. My view is "Christianity is true but ever since the government (Rome; circa 350) got involved it went downhill for thousands of years."



OMG, Smile. Are you serious? Are you really going to generalize me, as other Christians? WTF, Smile, WTF. Don't act like I hide my face from what evil "Christians" have done. I know what they've done. They have done some wicked ****. Don't act like I would acknowledge it.

Stop pre-judging me and just listen to what I'm saying. That quote was offensive and shows how you don't want to dialogue and just want to vent.

I think it's great you meet on the weekends with Native Indians.



I'm glad you said "keep" but I encourage you to HAVE an open mind. Cause your obviously closed to the idea that I could be right.

"unless you want to literally take the words out of the bible as factual"
- It is a document. It's valid as any other. I've stated my stance on this before. Maybe you just didn't listen to it, which is fine, but it's saddening because I thought we were going to talk about it.


No twist. I take your statements/posts as face value and reply to them line by line. So, I'd say I might've misunderstood. But you made it sound like it was mainly the Romans who killed Jesus. I think the Passion of the Christ is a good depiction of "how" He was killed. Jews urged the Roman government.


You say different, but Christ would've said the same. Everything Christ taught was in the OT but the religious leaders decided to twist things into a hateful society, when the OT was about love. Christ fulfilled the law, He was the embodiment of it.



You almost contradict yourself here. Most of the apostles died in teaching what Christ taught, up until circa 350. The Romans made a spectacle of Christians. Lions eating the flesh of Christians, etc.



Again, you almost contradict yourself again. (Almost....) You say it's "misrepresented", yet you have no source behind this "misrepresentation". You base your view of Jesus on bits and pieces of Scripture (or documents that are 300 AD +), yet you have no solid foundation for your belief.

Other than you say "Jesus was just a good humanitarian man." This is called circular reasoning. You believe something because you believe it. People can believe what they want, but it doesn't mean it's true, at the end of the day.

Is it possible for Jesus to be "just man"? No. Then based on the NT, He was a lunatic, not a humanitarian. A man claiming to be God in the flesh is pretty nuts... this is why He died. Jesus was killed by the Jews because Jesus claimed to be God. Without this, the Jews wouldn't have had Him killed.

Could Jesus have went to India? Well, if He was really called to the Jews and into submission of His parents, then no because He was working with His father as a carpenter's apprentice. (FYI, back then, you wouldn't "ask your dad/mom" for anything, it was more of a slave relationship.)

If Jesus was a lunatic, then sure. He could go to India, but then He wasn't called to the Jews and shouldn't have died.

I'd encourage you to read Case for Christ.



Again, Smile, I need to repeat myself. This is AFTER 350 AD. All of your citation is AFTER 350 AD.

Let's look closer into 35 AD till 350 AD: Emperor's (like a hand full of them, like a new one every few years) then Emperor Nero then Domitian then Trajan then Hadrian then Septimius Severus then Decius then Diocletian. A nice link is http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chronindex.htm

I'd encourage you to read that. This is what led up to the decision of Constantine.

Side note: I've chosen Christianity among other because of the Leader. There is little evidence to say He wasn't who He said He was (God). Although many of the followers are stupid and serve themselves in the name of this Leader. It doesn't mean the Leader is bad, it just means we live in a world that is flawed and corrupt. I don't follow the followers, I follow Christ. Some followers need a NCIS head slap.

@Thomas J.I Packer is a hard core Christian. He's got some great writings but some are a little extreme. :/

Smile, thanks!! I'll buy it when I get some free time to read. :)

I never said Christians came up with it "first". Stop assuming. :)



Hmm. To an extent, this would be impossible, if indeed Jesus is the Messiah. According to Rabbinic tradition, one can't start teaching until the age of 30. It's at this age when one takes over His father's job or is allowed the higher calling of Rabbi.

People who tend to quote "missing years" simply don't understand the context of Jesus or His calling.

Context like:
- Jesus came for the JEWS............................. JEWS. JEWS. JEWS. JEWS. JEWS. And just in case you don't realize this, 99% of the people Jesus talked to was a Jew. And the 1 person (that I can think of) that He talked to, who was a gentile, He almost spoke in a racist manner.
- According to tradition and fulfilling prophesy, Jesus didn't start His ministry until the age of 30.
- The entire idea of Jesus being man, is that He lived everyday life. Did the things we didn't do. Lived normal everyday life, without sin. Lived under parents. Worked a job. Etc.
- And others, but I'm not 100% polished on all of this. :/



- Different Idealogy? I'd disagree strongly here. Many things Jesus taught was illuminating OT scriptures. Like for example when He was 'tempted by the Devil' for 40 days. In all three responses of Jesus, He quotes OT scripture. And numerous times throughout dialogues with the Jewish leaders, Jesus uses OT scripture to show how the Religious leaders got it wrong.

- Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus' death. ;) It was Pilate. Other documents back that up. ;)



- Lol. Jesus came to the Jews. OT stands for "Old Testament" or "Old Covenant" or in more clear english "Old Contract". The Old Contract between man and God. Jesus fulfilled the Old Contract, to bring the New Contract, where through Him (Jesus) all men can communicate with God.

Also, about the "losing members", I doubt you'll have even 1 source to cite for this. This is hearsay. More like someone's opinion.



Huh? "With this being said they wrote exactly the opposite of what Jesus was teaching"

Quote a source on this. Don't ask me to look it up. I couldn't find my source on the Buddhist thing, so I dropped it.

Also, about the rapist. That's in the book of Leviticus, 4th book of the OT, not NT. So...Smile, I would REALLY urge you to read the bible yourself because your obviously throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-Also, on the "strange" laws. I haven't verified all of them but many of them made sense in context of the culture/time they lived in. Like, if they obeyed the laws, it meant life to the individual and the community as a whole, but if they disobeyed, it meant death and infection to the individual and community. Now, this isn't "all" laws but a large amount of them.



I'll be honest here. This one is difficult for me to iron out. (The scripture that says it.) Like I've read the background on it and different views and I don't see how someone can say "it doesn't say women can't preach" because it almost literally does. It's a difficult Scripture that I'm honestly still confused about. :/



Props to you! :) That's good work you've done!



Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My mother was raped but I didn't see it, did it still happen? Um..YES IT DID. So, please stop limiting everything.

Also, about the Communism thing. I totally agree. Smile, just so you know about me. My belief system is very rouge. I try to be as open as possible and be as objective as I possibly can before I come to any conclusion.

I know very little about Communism but I do know over 100 stories of Chinese Christians being brutally assaulted, for promoting Jesus. And that the Christian churches within the country are regulated by the government.



Then Buddhism is very VERY VERY evil (I'm basing this off of your quote above). Buddhism says "I know nothing". It's a very humble stance of the Buddha but it's one of his teachings. ;) I'd like to think WE DO KNOW somethings but not in full.



Again, I think your only looking at the bad... You can't have good without bad. You can't have bad without good. Christianity has done A LOT of good. I think you should throw down your preconceived notions and look at the other side, just for 1-3 months. You'll be amazed at what you'll find.



I think this closed mind is something I'm trying to persuade against. I'm very open to Jesus not being God. But my experience and knowledge goes against it. I've read the Jesus seminars in the 90's. I've looked into other religions and I'm still into looking into more of it.



I never said this. Do I deny this? Hmm... It depends. I think Christianity should never be governmental law, unless it's 3 major laws, love God, love others, love fellow Christians. But even then, it's still missing the point. Jesus wants genuine worship, so, Christians who pursue 'Christian laws in government' are sinning as the Pharisees did in Jesus' time.

So, if asked "Should Christian law be in government" my answer is NO.

If asked "Should an individual worship only jesus" my answer is YES because logically it's fool proof. Most religions say "be good" Christianity says "trust in Jesus and try to imitate Him". I think you cover all your bases with being a follower of Christ (not of Christendom).



I believe Jesus (God and man) would be disappointed. So, I agree. :) (I know you don't believe Jesus=God but I do, so, I thought I'd just throw you a curve ball. :P )



You might've read them too fast where you ddin't retain much. Because you obviously got the NT and the OT mixed up. (you said the apostles endorsed rape, when it was in the Torah/Leviticus.)



I think this is where si strongly differ. I read people who come to different conclusions. I read BOTH sides, not just one. I think you should listen to some preaching. Ignore the extremists (because it seems like this might be too much for now) but listen to the other side.



Again, your methods of testing Christianity is based on it's followers and not it's teachings. Therefore, I disagree with your assessment. As I've said numerous times before. YOUR LOOKING ONLY AT ONE SIDE, the opposing side, the side that says Christianity is totally evil. Christianity has contributed (in both positive and negative) more to humanity THAN ANY RELIGION/organization/group of people.



I have. :) I'm part native-american. There are some people that they had some Jewish/Christian influence (in thought, not by "White men"). For example, some chants say "Yahhhh-wehhh" which is "Yah-weh", the Jewish name of God (YHWH; hebrew has no vowels).



Christianity is nothing without the cross. As Paul said, "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we are of ALL people the most to be shamed."



I probably know more than you . ;) Unless your 50. Much of the OT is extremely similar to Babylon and Egypt's teachings. I know a lot but there is always more information to learn. It's like a never ending well.... NEVER ENDING. How can we sleep? :P (Stuff like this [never ending] makes me want to pull my hair out.)

Wow. What a loaded response Smile. :)



Yea. I got that. But no one has a perfect history. Mankind can be very even, no matter what banner they promote (Christianity, Buddhism, etc)



Yes, but some of it's not negative. Evangelism isn't evil. It's just promoted by flawed people with differing motives. <<This is in the general sense, not just Christianity, think marketing a company, it's not evil but the motives behind the person promoting it might be off/wrong/evil, or think any religion that promotes itself.



I have to respectfully disagree. Catholicism is on a major decline but Pentecostalism is almost larger than Catholicism and still growing fast. I'm not saying "one is right", I'm just saying certain sects maybe declining but the majority is still growing (outside of the US; China has more Christians [Pentacostals] than the US has.)

Now, about the China remark. It's an underground church that is very vast in it's reach. True miracles, powerful things, only seen in the Bible are there. Is it a perfect church? No. They get thrown in jail because the government doesn't like it (Christianity).



Yes/no. Yes. No because some people make a new denomination because they just didn't like the pastor. Or they didn't like 1 simple issue.

This doesn't mean anything, other than there are differing views on things. Many people don't realize that the Bible is about Jesus and how we should emulate Him. It's not an encyclopedia or in lawyer talk. It doesn't answer every question. Nor is it 100% clear. But Jesus said only 3 things matter. Love God (Jesus). Love others (and enemies). Love fellow Christians.

I think at the end of the day, we can both agree, Christendom received a: n/a (Love God; can't really know) F (Love others/enemies) and F (Love fellow Christians).



I think your missing something. Treat others as you want to be treated (that in the New Testament; known as the Golden Rule). I don't think anyone can disagree unless they are just screwed up. lol.



Now, my view may sound weird and new. But it's not. Church history backs me (a little). Hell isn't a place of literal fire, if it is, then it's not the worst part of hell. Heaven isn't the place where everything is perfect.

Hell is simply the absence of Jesus. Heaven is simply the presence of Jesus. Jesus=God=Love, heaven is just the full experience behind the being of our maker. Euphoria.

The torment of hell is deep remorse because now your separated from your Maker.

I'm of the belief that God is God. He is SOOO far beyond us, that explaining "why this and not that" is impossible. He is the author, from beginning to end.

I believe in hell (Jesus was the one who spoke about it the most...) and heaven (The Book of Revelation speaks most about this).

But, I'm working out my faith. I don't promote it. I don't evangelize. I don't even go to church. I pursued becoming a pastor but have side-tracked because of recent life situations (let's just say my faith was shaken).



Me 2. :)



Yes it is. But your being negative about the past. And your only looking at one side. Have you ever eaten peanut butter? A Christian (president) was the one who invented that and thousands of other things (from the peanut) that are STILL beneficial to society. Christianty brought education to many of the poor and partly (PARTLY!!!!! not fully, WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, NOR WERE WE FOUNDED AS ONE; sorry for the caps but I try not to be naive and actually try to look things up.) why America is the country as it is today.

Also, you might say America is a horrible nation. If you strictly base that on your thought-logic, in the quote above. Slavery. More Powerful Drugs. Started Wars. Etc.



I wish I had saved those sources. But either way. I know what you mean.



Pet Peeve: Smile.. My pet peeve is Americans using the word "Judge" as if it was a bad term. Judging isn't bad. What about our legislation? Judging is simply deciding if something is positive (good) or negative (bad). Or innocent or guilty.

If you've been judged, doesn't mean anything bad. It just means someone decided something about you.

/pet peeve.



Sad thing is there is like 100,000+. :(((



I agree but.....I would say, your missing out on the FULL experience of God, by rejecting the real Jesus.



And sadly some of them out work some Christians. :(



It might one day. Especially if the brands/religions continue to not solve their brand issues. I don't think the Jews have done too much damage (except BC). But Christians and Muslims have the worst history. :( Especially since they fight each other throughout it.

I'd honestly encourage you to look to Jesus. Not the people. Like, you know in your family (everyone has one, I think, unles you have a perfect family), where there is that "person" you don't want to say is your brother/cousin but ...the truth is... THEY ARE. That's how the history of Christianity makes me feel. IT IS apart my MY history, not matter how much I hate it.

Look at Jesus and the early church (before the Bible was complied) and you'll see a great organization. You'd be surprised at what you see. Some of the early church writings, you'll NEVER hear in a church, just because it's very frank and in your face about things (not hell and such, but in honesty and wisdom).

That's your opinion, not fact. But the other side would be difficult to prove, in an absolute form.



Oh!!!!!! I didn't know that. I didn't see an author, nor "source:x" or whatever. Thanks. Who's the author? I doubt there is 1 book on the "Origin of the Bible". ;)

- I'm not sure if I could confirm this. But regardless, I think your assuming something. That people knew what was going on 20 miles away. They didn't. When's the last time you walked 20 miles to your job? Or 100 miles to see family, in another city?

Reality is, EVEN IF there isn't documentation, just because there is no outside documentation, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means there is not outside documentation. Assuming is for fools, in science, in religion, in anything. Don't assume ANYTHING. Just because a 3rd party didn't confirm it, doesn't it didn't happen, it could possibly happen, but there is just little/no verification of it. (So there should be healthy caution/skeptism.)



- Actually I think there is. Some of my hardcore Christian friends, could cite empirical proof that there was evidence that hints that the events in the OT happened. I couldn't. I haven't studied enough to do a good service to this. And sadly there are very few Christian articles on the web but maybe you could find the Christian response.



- Again, this goes back to my original response. Don't assume the world was small, it was very large back then. (Meaning 500 miles meant a few weeks travel, not a plane ticket and an a few hours of flight.)



- ... Did you read this? Maybe you miss worded something because it clearly states your CONFIRMING THE BIBLE and not refuting it.

Your saying "The bible said x but it wasn't until the past few hundreds that there was evidence of x." Umm, just because there is no recorded data, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

If that was true. You didn't exist until they printed a birth certificate of you, with verifiable evidence that you were you (dna, finger print, pictures/portrait, etc.)

I'm sorry but I disagree. You existed, when you were conceived. Now, without that document, or any document, it would be difficult to prove you existed but the truth remains, you were born, on the day you were born.

I could take this analogy to an extreme. Some of your logic might also indicate, if there were no one to 3rd party records, therefore, you don't exist. Even if your own family kept a semi-detailed account of your life. We need to throw that out because it's not a 3rd party. (Sorry, but I think, that your family photo album/diary DOES have merit.)



- I've looked at both sides to many "contradictions" in the Bible. I haven't sifted through *all* of the "contradictions" but I've only found <20 that have some merit, and that's searching through thousands of "supposed" contradictions. LESS THAN 20!!!

There is more error regarding Leonardo DaVinci's life than the Bible.

(Also, you haven't named one...I look forward to seeing your "contradictions". I'm not a scholar but I'm sure when you find the contradictions, you could easily google the opposite side and you'll see the rational explanation.)

Finally, it seems that you haven't looked at the other side (the Christian responses). If you have, you'd be a little more humble about this but your not. Your acting as if I know nothing, when I know a lot, but not all.

There is no way you can ABSOLUTELY prove something. I'm not preaching Agnosticism but I'm preaching that everything (religious and non-religious) should have healthy skepticism. Check out my view on this, in a little more detail. http://www.joshuasciarrino.com/blog/doubt-is-a-godly-thing-not-sin/

- I've read about ~10 people that slayed people, that were Buddhist. Now, I'd love to quote a source but sadly, I can't find them. Probably because it was years ago, before I realized Web Browsers could bookmark things. :(



- If there is a score card. My issue is who can judge? If you judge by the followers, sure Buddhism my be "better" than a monotheistic belief. If you judge by the leader, I'm sure you'd come up with a different assessment.

You find what your seeking and it seems your seeking a non-Christian belief system. Finding each spot and blemish to say, "Look it's fallible".

You crusade in anger, against other beliefs. I doubt the "great Buddha" taught this, actually from some Buddhist friends, he taught tolerance of others beliefs. So...I hope your not Buddhist, cause then your going against some of your own teachings... (this is the same "sin" that Christians commit all the time.)

@Abracadabra

What? What is your basis for this idea? There is nothing recorded, during the time of Christ that even implies anything remotely close to this.

If Jesus was just a peaceful nice guy, the Jews wouldn't have plead to have Him killed/crucified. (This is ***nothing*** against the Jews but the Jews rejected the notion that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, was the Messiah and they thought it was shameful (and punishable by death) to claim such things).



I absolutely agree. :(

Some of the things your posting, is just simply neutral and/or Christian History (good side).

Like missionaries preaching, people translating things for the first time, etc. etc. None of that is bad. And in many ways it's very good.

But the brutal slaughtering of many people "in the name of God", is disgusting but I think at the end of the day, look at the leader, not his followers.

There are plenty of Buddhists (and any other "peaceful" religion; and/or belief system [non-religious]) that murdered people in the name of their belief system. Socialism, capitalism, etc. Evolution. Science. Etc.

I think the best way to look at things is, no matter what group of people your agreeing with. There are many things in their belief system that are horrible and chaotic.

Side note: Great snippet of Church History, I just wish you cited your sources though. :D

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with this statement. Evolution is just as dangerous. Survival of the fittest? Wow...talk about something that works with almost every dictator...

At the end of the day, every belief system is "dangerous". In one form or another. Although Christianity (if you look at Christ's teachings) is a strong preacher of love. So is Judaism. Muslim, hmm, if you read some of the teachings, it frankly endorses certain destructive practices.

There are 'flaws' in every belief system. Even non-major religions and non-religious belief systems. Mainly because WE ARE ALL FLAWED. So, at the end of the day. It's difficult to argue "who's right and who's wrong". Good luck in your continued search. :)

Smiless,

Some of your statements have no backing, nor any understanding of context of many of your statements.

It sounds more like a rant to me, than real scientific assessments of the origins of the bible.

People can say "I agree" all they want but that doesn't make it true. How many years did people say the world was flat? Many, but it never made it true, just some common held belief, confirmed by other people of the same belief.

To Clarify: I think you should look at the facts themselves, instead of just stroking your own belief system. You'd be surprised on how accurate the bible is on many topics. I'm not saying it's 100% (because I haven't checked it all, nor do we have all the info). But that you should dig deeper. :)

I'm sorry but your speaking from a common idea but not truth. If you look at the 3 major studies done, it was inconclusive "why" people were bi/gay/les.

The Gay community touts those 3 major studies but if you read them, it says "we don't know...".

@Estena. Point blank. This question was never raised for hundreds of thousands of years, or if it was, it was never recorded/found. Christianity was pure, then got organized, then grew exponentially, then was tyrannical, and now losing it's voice.

Christianity, is following Christ and His teachings.

Buddhism is following the Buddha's teachings. Etc. Etc.

So, if you want the bare bones of what Christ taught, I don't think you'll find an answer (Going strictly by what the Gospel says He said). If you consider the book of Revelation (first few sentences say "Revelation of Jesus Christ, spoken through John"), then you'll have a clear answer. No.

I think you should look aside what Republican/Christians say (don't get me started with repubs....omg, Christ would weap at such things) and just look at what your religion says, since that is your question.

In America, you can do and say what you want. You have that freedom and liberty. You can make any blend of Christianity that you want. You can be a "Christian Prostitute" or "Pedophile Priest" etc. Without having immediate consequences.

The real issue is your conscience and the teachings of your religion. Obviously your conscience is doing something, or you wouldn't have asked... But I hope this helps, despite all the hate messages and bs other people were writing. :)

I wonder how many people here have actually listened to "Creation Scientists". I'd be willing to be only a handful of people have.

I think it's best to listen to both sides.

It's a hot topic not "just" because of it's earth shattering ideas but because it isn't 100% (either way; if your in the evolution camp, Science doesn't have absolutes...so don't preach them ;) ).

Anywho. I think the Church is very disappointing. Because they don't talk in-depth about these topics. Republicans are retarded because some think their Christian and just screw things up for Christians (if we didn't need any help...lol; we got cheating pastors, gay priests, and money grubbing leaders).

But also on the other side. I think people who believe in Evolution should be more open to listening.

Science, by nature, ALWAYS has an open ear. I say this because the day we stop testing something, is the day it's not as valid. I say this because what if tomorrow, randomly a meteor hits earth and we lose gravity. Wow, there goes a bunch of "facts" (there are no "facts" in science, just verifiable ideas based on past tests).

Creationism has a lot of questions to answer, if it's really true. Evolution does as well.

I'm not trying to preach Creationism. Nor Evolution. I just think both sides should open up a little more and dialogue about this "hot topic".

-Happy Learning and Growing.

Just kidding. :)