There is a time and place for all things. Would a christian wallpaper site stock pure KDE designs? I am glad that you have your faith, but why this forum when there are many out there for pure christian art, such as yours? I would get it if it was about how Jesus loves linux, but your art has no reflection of kde, linux etc. Is it about 'preaching to the converted' being of no use?
Just a question for the author, I am not trolling.
Tim, yep, gotta rib a guy, when he goes out on a limb sometimes ; ).
Anywho- you're gimpin all of these?
and
if you wanna keep the text that's cool, it's your project, but could ya offer a transparent text ? I know I like to change text colors subtly on my desktop (shades/hues) so things like xchat aren't boogered up on top of em.....
Thanks again...... good job
Yeah, you take chances when you change your style. Just like anything, you can get in a rut after a while...then you experiment with a new idea and see if anyone hollers.
About the transparent text. I'll see what I can do. Yes, it's all done in the Gimp.
Thanks again,
TIm
Yes your work has improved a lot recently and your last two wallpapers look really good, a pity you won't create versions wo text, but I understand your reasons even if I don't approve them (you know my opinion).
Anyway, great work.
Hey, thanks. I appreciate it. Actually, I understand what you are saying about doing one without words. However, that would kind of nullify the message. As a Christian, everything I do will reflect what I believe.
If having the wording on them makes the ratings go down, so be it. The work is for the encouragement of fellow believers...and I tend to look at downloads more than anything else...that is the most accurate vote in my book (Many people download but don't vote, etc.)...
AGain, thanks. I remember a day a few months ago when your posts were not as positive...so it means alot to me. I'm headed in the right direction!
TIm
The historical record indicates, and archaeological finds have verified, that when crucifixions were done, the victim would be nailed to the cross through the wrists...at the joint where the base of the hand joins the arm.
If the nails were driven through the palms, the nails would tear through the flesh.
Crucifixion was a slow, excrutiating death. Death generally came by asphyxiation. To get each breath, the person would have to push against the nail through the feet just so inhalation was possible. This also means pulling with the arms. Each breath was pure torture.
This is what Jesus Christ submitted Himself to, to pay the penalty for your sin and mine.
Tim
First of all, historical records indicate that typical crucifiction was performed by lashing the victim to the cross with rope. It is very atypical to have nailed them there. Crucifiction is a method of asphyxiation, wherein the victim is unable to breathe due to the extreme tension on the upper torso. Breathing becomes increasingly shallow, to the point that what little oxygen the victim can intake is insufficient to supply enough air to sustain life. It is an extremely slow and agonizing death. If you are going use this site as a forum to foster your agenda the I would suggest you get your facts correct.
Actually, they would often do both -- nail and lash -- especially if the nails were driven through the palms.
Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross. Whether it was through his wrists with Him lashed to the patibulum, it doesn't alter what He accomplished...substitutionary death for sin.
Regarding the rest, all you've really done is go into some detail that I intentionally left out. My information is not incorrect, just not as complete as you have made it. But thanks for supplying it nonetheless.
Yes, it was an excruciating death. Yes, it was ultimately by asphyxiation. Extreme shock was also involved. The person had to push on the nails to raise his body so he could get a breath of air. It has been called the most cruel form of execution in history. From what I've read from physicians who have described what happened, I believe it.
Thanks,
Tim
That is a very comprehensive question!
Jesus Christ was born circa 3 b.c. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament biblical prophecies concerning a "Deliverer". During his life of 33 years, he fulfilled approximately 300 or more Old Testament prophecies concerning Himself...some of which he had no control over (such as where He was born, being offered vinegar on the cross, his betrayal by Judas, etc.)
The probability of Him fulfilling just 10 of these is on the order of 10 followed by 19 zeros.
The point is that the Old Testament predicted his coming, and He fulfilled it.
Jesus Christ claimed to be God come in human flesh...a claim which the religious leaders readily understood...and sought to kill Him for it.
Jesus predicted His death and resurrection; both events for which there were eyewitnesses.
What is all this about? Jesus Christ came as God in human flesh to die for the penalty of sin.
God created us to fellowship with Him. But, man rebelled. The result being a separation between man and God. Because God is Holy and Just, payment must be made to restore the relationship. Because of His love for those whom He created, He paid the penalty Himself.
The Old testament predicted the coming of Christ. History recorded it. We know He died and rose again. Secular historians have repeatedly tried and failed to discredit the Biblical record. Many have come to trust Christ as a result of their attempts. Ironic. Sir William Ramsay, for example, was an atheist who sought to prove that the Gospel of Luke (a book in the Bible's New testament). He not only came to the conclusion that Luke "...was an historian of the first order..." but also became a Christian. So, take it from a former atheist, Sir William Ramsay, read the Gospel of Luke. You can trust it and will learn alot about Jesus Christ.
Because He rose again, He proved He has power over death...and we know we can trust Him.
Someone said "Strong faith in a weak plank will get you wet...but weak faith in a strong plank will get you over the river."
Jesus Christ came to live the perfect life we can't; one that satisfies God. Still, he paid the penalty that we owed (and He did not).
I hope this helps...
Tim
Oh, come on. First of all, the probability that one given person fulfills those prophecies may be very little, but as there are a whole lot of persons, the chance that someone will fulfill them is a lot greater. Second of all, I dare you to name 300 prophecies Jesus allegedly fulfilled. Third of all, the bible is not a reliable source for historic information.
As for the religious leaders trying to kill Jesus - assuming that the story is true - assassination was a common way to get rid of unpleasant competitors in those times. It may as well (even better, because this approach doesn't need miracles) be that Jesus was a preacher who got too much attention, thus endangering the political influence of the priests. You didn't have to be god's son in order to get killed. In fact, this shows that even in those times no proof existed that Jesus was the son of god - who would have dared to kill him if there was? And, as always, the only remotely contemporary source of this story is the bible, which casts a big shadow of doubt on the whole thing.
Last and least, Sir Ramsay. Apart from an atheist converting to christianity proving near nothing (There are christians who abandoned their faith as well), Sir Ramsay gave up on science very easily. He converted because he found that Luke's gospel contained names of governors, countries, cities and the like that were accurate and not known Ramsay's times. In Luke's days, however, these names were contemporary and thus should have been easy to find out. I can name a number of novels that name places accurately. Yet you won't believe that "Eye of the needle" is an accurate record of history.
*come on. First of all, the probability that one given person fulfills those prophecies may be very little, but as there are a whole lot of persons, the chance that someone will fulfill them is a lot greater.*
****
1 in 10 followed by 19 zeroes. Pretty slim to start with. and that is only for 10 of the 300.
****
*Second of all, I dare you to name 300 prophecies Jesus allegedly fulfilled.*
*****
If you were even serious in your "dare", would it make one whit of difference with you? As can be seen from other threads, such as one regarding Alethia's wallpaper "Vine and branches", you get very slippery when your claims are cornered.
******
*Third of all, the bible is not a reliable source for historic information.*
*****
You are making a truth claim about the "innaccuracy" of scripture. Prove it.
*****
*As for the religious leaders trying to kill Jesus - assuming that the story is true - assassination was a common way to get rid of unpleasant competitors in those times. It may as well (even better, because this approach doesn't need miracles) be that Jesus was a preacher who got too much attention, thus endangering the political influence of the priests.*
****
Yup. THe pharisees sought to kill Jesus at least in part for that reason...he was touching their bubble! However, they did admit that they were angry with him because he claimed to be 'the Son of God'. No one at that time could make that claim...except Jesus.
What's your point?
*****
*And, as always, the only remotely contemporary source of this story is the bible, which casts a big shadow of doubt on the whole thing.*
****
And again, we see your prejudice. If it's in the Bible, it must not be reliable. Again, where is your proof? For hundreds of years now, archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical. Yet, the scriptures led them to it!
You are ignoring the evidence that is in front of you, yet you have the nerve to ask for more...such as wanting me to list 300 prophecies.
And of course, you ignore the secular historical records of those who wrote of Christ...
And you want more evidence (to ignore?)!
Just how much evidence, or what kind, would *ever* be sufficient for you?
****
*Last and least, Sir Ramsay. Apart from an atheist converting to christianity proving near nothing (There are christians who abandoned their faith as well).*
*****
I said that there are many who have done the same. And they didn't become convinced overnight. Years as a matter of fact. These were not simpletons who just were looking for something to fill their empty heads.
As far as 'christians' abandoning their faith, the Scriptures are plain that that true converts do not do so. 1 John states that "They went from us because they were not of us." Jesus said "The one who endures to the end shall be saved." The indicative is used to say "The saved ones are the ones who endure to the end."
According to Jesus, not me, those who abandon their faith show that they were not for real to begin with.
*****
*Sir Ramsay gave up on science very easily.*
****
30 years of research is giving up 'very easily'?
Ramsay came to the conclusion that Luke was reliable after 30 years of research. Can you demonstrate that it is unreliable?
****
Finally, in the "vine and branches" paper, you said you were giving up on all this stuff. You never did ultimately answer my questions there...or do you reserve the right to have one-sided discussions?
-- tim
Oh...I would only add that Ramsay became a CHristian. He gave up on atheism, not science.
Your statement implies that atheism=science. which also implies that christianity is opposed to science. that is not true.
True science involves repeated testing and observation...the scientific method per Francis Bacon (who, by the way, was a follower of Jesus Christ).
I hope this clarifies things...if not for you, then maybe for others who read this.
Tim
....and of course, Jesus centered His whole life around fulfilling prophecies just to convince people of who He was...just to fool people...
I suppose anyone in their right mind would really do this when they KNEW that involved being nailed to a cross?
Oh yeah...and quoting part of Psalm 22 from the cross? Sure was dedicated to deception!
Give it a rest.
Of course, I believe He DID do all these things...not to decieve...but rather to show Who He was to those who were looking...who had "eyes to see and ears to hear".
Ironic. You will allow someone to do all these things for no useful purpose...at their own ultimate loss...but you won't allow it to be an indicator that Jesus was Who He said He was!
-- Ohhhkay.
Tim
I'll just answer all three of your posts here. I will not answer the 'you slippery bastard' accusations, however, since that would amount to nothing. If you call me 'slippery' because I won't give simple answers to complicated questions, then so be it. And no, I still will not give simple answers to complicated questions. I hope that settles that.
1 in 10 followed by 19 zeroes. Pretty slim to start with. and that is only for 10 of the 300.
Where did you get that number, and how was it calculated? One of the funny things about probability is that you can't put an exact figure on it. Probability depends on the preconditions one is willing to accept.
Anyway, this is a minor matter. I agree that this resurrection thingy is very improbable. My point of view is that it did not happen, not that it was probable.
You are making a truth claim about the "innaccuracy" of scripture. Prove it.
There is a difference between inaccuracy and unreliability. Anyway, in a discussion about whether the bible is accurate, it is futile to assume that it is. Circular logic proves nothing. That is why in this discussion we cannot rely on the bible.
As for my general claim, you have to prove the reliability, not the other way around. The concept of reliability dictates that - otherwise I could make some wild claims about invisible aliens infiltrating the UN and hold my claims reliable until they have been disproven. As for the inaccuracy - well, you asked for it. The bible contradicts itself on general occasions. There are two genesises, for example, with a slightly different schedule. Depending on which gospel you read, Jesus was born either in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, and similar stuff.
THe pharisees sought to kill Jesus at least in part for that reason...he was touching their bubble!
(...)
What's your point?
My point is that the pharisees trying to kill Jesus does not prove he was the son of god. The whole crucification thing proves precisely nothing.
And of course, you ignore the secular historical records of those who wrote of Christ...
Josephus Flavius reports the execution of 'Jacobus, brother of Jesus who was called "Christus"' in the Testimonium Flavonium, that is the one secular source I know that is partially held to be reliable. This particular paragraph is also believed to be unaltered by most historians. Keep in mind that history books were frequently censored, copied and...completed...by christian monks during the middle ages - other parts of the TF as we know it are held to be obvious forgeries. Ask a historian about it, if you don't believe me. As Josephus Flavius was born years after Jesus allegedly died, his testimony does not prove anything, though.
There are also some other things that throw doubt on jesus. For example - why did he never write anything himself? Surely the son of god would know how to write?
Don't get me wrong. I cannot disprove that Jesus existed, and I even think there probably was a troublesome wandering priest who got himself in deep trouble, but that's about it. It is important to keep in mind that there are serious doubts about even that.
As far as 'christians' abandoning their faith, the Scriptures are plain that that true converts do not do so.
And you have the nerve to call me slippery? I might as well say that someone who converts from atheism to christianity never really was an atheist, because he always latently believed that there was something.
30 years of research is giving up 'very easily'?
Settling for names of places, kings and the like is 'giving up very easily'. If that took him thirty years, it's either a demonstration of thoroughness or incompetence, neither of which has anything to do with the accuracy of Luke's gospel.
True science involves repeated testing and observation...the scientific method per Francis Bacon (who, by the way, was a follower of Jesus Christ).
That is one method of science. It is also called 'experimental physics'. It is not the only kind of science. Understanding, for example, is a far more important part of it. Science is ultimately founded on mathematics.
Ironic. You will allow someone to do all these things for no useful purpose...at their own ultimate loss...but you won't allow it to be an indicator that Jesus was Who He said He was!
Sigh. Again, you don't understand. Even if Jesus fulfilled all your precious prophecies according to the bible (I remember one that took a lot of tweaking to make Jesus fit in - the messiah was meant to free the jewish people, and I guess there is more of them), that does not mean it really happened. The bible says that the bible is true, true. But that does not prove the bible true. Circular logic - you should get a grip on that one. Let us, for a moment, assume Jesus existed and died in 33 AD. The first gospel was not to be written for another 40 years. Forty years of oral history. Do you have any idea of what this can do to a story? Back when I was 17, there was an occasion when it took rumors two days to evolve from me and a girl kissing to me having a threesome with two girls. Now, imagine how a story can change in forty years.
****
I'll just answer all three of your posts here. I will not answer the 'you slippery bastard' accusations, however, since that would amount to nothing. If you call me 'slippery' because I won't give simple answers to complicated questions, then so be it. And no, I still will not give simple answers to complicated questions. I hope that settles that.
****
I know oxdead won't "hear" this...but for those who by off-chance come by and read this, the "complicated questions" I asked had to do with his authority on KDELOOK. I asked him simply if he's an admin for the site; he had been acting as if he were the "submission police".
Of course, the complicated part is because an honest answer will reveal he is just another user like you or me...and he'd have less "weight" to throw around.
Ok. OxDeadBeef. AGain, you have taken my statements and completely circumnavigated my points. Go back and reread what I said and what you responded. You misrepresented me more than once.
Basing the reliability of the scriptures on archaeology is not circular reasoning.
Also, your "oral history" argument doesn't make it...40 years certainly allows for eyewitnesses to be alive...besides, you are presuming that *nothing was written*.
...and Luke explains this. Please, go read the first four verses of Luke 1. He explains what he did in writing the Gospel so that we could be "more certain" of what happened...according to eyewitnesses.
So, if you want, keep rambling. Seems to me that you have simply decided to disbelieve no matter what...and that no matter where I go, there you are.
Well, ok. Hope you have fun.
TIm
Call me weak, but I just had to remind you that, once again, you seem totally unable to ignore the very stuff you don't like.
Previously, you said you couldn't ignore my work because it wasn't "labeled" right. Well, the thumnail name is "God So Loved".
So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one??? I'd love to know.
Per the thread at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=9775&xexpand=all
anyone can see it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit you are just another user like anyone else.
Again, this wasn't as "complicated" as you would seem to be making it...except that answering my questions would nail you down to being responsible for your own choices...
Tim
Call me weak, but I just had to remind you that, once again, you seem totally unable to ignore the very stuff you don't like.
Previously, you said you couldn't ignore my work because it wasn't "labeled" right. Well, the thumnail name is "God So Loved".
So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one??? I'd love to know.
Per the thread at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=9775&xexpand=all
anyone can see it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit you are just another user like anyone else.
Again, this wasn't as "complicated" as you would seem to be making it...except that answering my questions would nail you down to being responsible for your own choices...
Tim
I asked him simply if he's an admin for the site; he had been acting as if he were the "submission police".
Of course, the complicated part is because an honest answer will reveal he is just another user like you or me...and he'd have less "weight" to throw around.
-----
The problem was that you demanded 'simply' yes or no as an answer, trying to prevent me from explaining myself. The part that apparently was too complicated for you to see was that it does not really matter whether I am or am not a kde-look admin, just as it doesn't matter whether you own the church when someone runs in and sacrifices a virgin in front of your nose.
Basing the reliability of the scriptures on archaeology is not circular reasoning.
-----
You have not presented archeological evidence that the bible was true. Parts of it, admitted, but not the important ones. I am ready to accept that Luke's gospels names some cities and kings accurately. But so does 'eye of the needle', which is still a fictious novel. Maybe you'd got this if you'd read what I wrote. To put it accurately: In a set of logical expressions a_0, ..., a_n where a_1, ..., a_m | m < n are true, it does not follow that a_(m+1), ..., a_n are true as well. The 'circular logics' comment were in other contexts.
Also, your "oral history" argument doesn't make it...40 years certainly allows for eyewitnesses to be alive...
-----
After 40 years, Mark's gospel was written. Luke's was about 50-60 years after Jesus allegedly died. Now calculate - Assuming Mark was an eye-witness (an apostle, if he is to tell the whole story accurately) and met Jesus at the age of, say, 20. They run around for three years, Mark travels around for 40 years telling the story, answering questions, making up answers for little enerving kids that nowadays would tell the Santa at the mall he wasn't real and so on. After that, he is 63 years old. That is a very respectable age for anyone in that age, especially when you've led a life on the road. Let us assume he still lived and was able to write, and suffered no illnesses, then 40 years is still a very long time, especially when you spent them telling the story in a way that was meant to convince people that Jesus was the son of god. Take Luke now - he would have been well in his seventies, if not eighties - ages that were rarely reached in those times, especially when you take that life-on-the-road thing into account. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I dare call it improbable.
As for second hand-witnesses, that makes the reader a third-hand witness. Let there be a misunderstanding. The eye-witness reports 'Yeah, we were about 4000 people, and Jesus was feeding these guys with 7 breads and 2 fishes, if I recall correctly' and Luke understands 'Jesus fed 4000 people with 7 breads and 2 fishes'. Also, an eye-witness would have been pretty young when the actual event occured and pretty old when it was written down. I don't have unlimited confidence that he would remember correctly. And then there is always the possibility that Jesus was a fraud who tricked the people around him.
besides, you are presuming that *nothing was written*.
-----
By whom? The apostles are the only ones who knew the whole story, and most of them were fishermen. Not everybody could read back then, let alone write.
So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one???
-----
Do I need an excuse? I was bored, mainly. And then, when I read your genuinely stupid comments, I couldn't hold my horses. Maybe I should know better than to fight fire with fire. Call it human weakness.
Well, I have to hand it to Tim, his wallpapers can bring up some interesting discussions. I have been watching this one and wasn’t planning on adding to it but I couldn’t resist ;)
In answer to Oxydeadbeef Tim wrote
And again, we see your prejudice. If it's in the Bible, it must not be reliable. Again, where is your proof? For hundreds of years now, archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical. Yet, the scriptures led them to it!
Right…so according to Tim the fact that archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical is proof that the bible is reliable. This is of course a nonsense argument.
Take any religious/mythological text and you will find references to places and events from reality. For example many places mentioned in Greek mythology still exist today (e.g. the labyrinth on Crete, the temple at Delphi etc.etc.) and some events mentioned in Greek mythology are based on events that happened in reality. Archaeologists have used Greek mythology to help locate places (Troje?) and find things that people said were mythical. Using Tim’s logic this means that the stories Greek mythology must be a correct representation of realty of a few thousand years ago. Does this mean we can all expect to have to pay Charon to cross the river Styx when we die?
When it comes to reliability of the bible I always ask myself: how do the scriptures as Tim likes to say fit in what we today know about the universe, the world, life etc.
To me there seem to be many contradictions between the two. Last year Tim put up a wallpaper showing the Orion Nebula. I found this to be very ironic, since this Nebula is a so-called star nursery. The picture shows the creation of stars and possibly solar systems in progress. (And guess what..it takes more than 6 days) How about the fact that the earth existed billions of years before homo-sapiens existed. How about the dinosaurs, the several extinction events, evolution etc. etc.? How do they fit in? The answer is: they don’t.
Of course some people like to take a pre-renaissance approach to all this and simply deny anything that doesn’t seem to fit in with the scriptures even if the evidence is right in front of their noses. Evolution, dinosaurs? Nah.. I don’t care how much evidence there is..it’s not in the book so it can’t be. The book is the only reliable source of the truth and that’s that.
I can’t do that. For me there are to many inconsistencies between the bible and our knowledge to cal the bible reliable.
Sorry. I made a typo in the above. It was as follows:
*Sir William Ramsay, for example, was an atheist who sought to prove that the Gospel of Luke (a book in the Bible's New testament).*
I closed the parentheses and ended the sentence without adding "is unreliable".
Thanks, I hope this clarifies my meaning.
Tim
Ratings & Comments
34 Comments
There is a time and place for all things. Would a christian wallpaper site stock pure KDE designs? I am glad that you have your faith, but why this forum when there are many out there for pure christian art, such as yours? I would get it if it was about how Jesus loves linux, but your art has no reflection of kde, linux etc. Is it about 'preaching to the converted' being of no use? Just a question for the author, I am not trolling.
Have you also complained about the ones related to communism?
Tim, yep, gotta rib a guy, when he goes out on a limb sometimes ; ). Anywho- you're gimpin all of these? and if you wanna keep the text that's cool, it's your project, but could ya offer a transparent text ? I know I like to change text colors subtly on my desktop (shades/hues) so things like xchat aren't boogered up on top of em..... Thanks again...... good job
Yeah, you take chances when you change your style. Just like anything, you can get in a rut after a while...then you experiment with a new idea and see if anyone hollers. About the transparent text. I'll see what I can do. Yes, it's all done in the Gimp. Thanks again, TIm
Yes your work has improved a lot recently and your last two wallpapers look really good, a pity you won't create versions wo text, but I understand your reasons even if I don't approve them (you know my opinion). Anyway, great work.
ya know, these are starting to look really good man. maybe offering a w/ and wo/text version would help prop up ratings ? really man, good job here !
Hey, thanks. I appreciate it. Actually, I understand what you are saying about doing one without words. However, that would kind of nullify the message. As a Christian, everything I do will reflect what I believe. If having the wording on them makes the ratings go down, so be it. The work is for the encouragement of fellow believers...and I tend to look at downloads more than anything else...that is the most accurate vote in my book (Many people download but don't vote, etc.)... AGain, thanks. I remember a day a few months ago when your posts were not as positive...so it means alot to me. I'm headed in the right direction! TIm
looks like someone shot a bullet through those wrists
Maybe the Romans used air Hammers for crucifixion ;-)
The historical record indicates, and archaeological finds have verified, that when crucifixions were done, the victim would be nailed to the cross through the wrists...at the joint where the base of the hand joins the arm. If the nails were driven through the palms, the nails would tear through the flesh. Crucifixion was a slow, excrutiating death. Death generally came by asphyxiation. To get each breath, the person would have to push against the nail through the feet just so inhalation was possible. This also means pulling with the arms. Each breath was pure torture. This is what Jesus Christ submitted Himself to, to pay the penalty for your sin and mine. Tim
First of all, historical records indicate that typical crucifiction was performed by lashing the victim to the cross with rope. It is very atypical to have nailed them there. Crucifiction is a method of asphyxiation, wherein the victim is unable to breathe due to the extreme tension on the upper torso. Breathing becomes increasingly shallow, to the point that what little oxygen the victim can intake is insufficient to supply enough air to sustain life. It is an extremely slow and agonizing death. If you are going use this site as a forum to foster your agenda the I would suggest you get your facts correct.
Actually, they would often do both -- nail and lash -- especially if the nails were driven through the palms. Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross. Whether it was through his wrists with Him lashed to the patibulum, it doesn't alter what He accomplished...substitutionary death for sin. Regarding the rest, all you've really done is go into some detail that I intentionally left out. My information is not incorrect, just not as complete as you have made it. But thanks for supplying it nonetheless. Yes, it was an excruciating death. Yes, it was ultimately by asphyxiation. Extreme shock was also involved. The person had to push on the nails to raise his body so he could get a breath of air. It has been called the most cruel form of execution in history. From what I've read from physicians who have described what happened, I believe it. Thanks, Tim
who was jesus?
That is a very comprehensive question! Jesus Christ was born circa 3 b.c. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament biblical prophecies concerning a "Deliverer". During his life of 33 years, he fulfilled approximately 300 or more Old Testament prophecies concerning Himself...some of which he had no control over (such as where He was born, being offered vinegar on the cross, his betrayal by Judas, etc.) The probability of Him fulfilling just 10 of these is on the order of 10 followed by 19 zeros. The point is that the Old Testament predicted his coming, and He fulfilled it. Jesus Christ claimed to be God come in human flesh...a claim which the religious leaders readily understood...and sought to kill Him for it. Jesus predicted His death and resurrection; both events for which there were eyewitnesses. What is all this about? Jesus Christ came as God in human flesh to die for the penalty of sin. God created us to fellowship with Him. But, man rebelled. The result being a separation between man and God. Because God is Holy and Just, payment must be made to restore the relationship. Because of His love for those whom He created, He paid the penalty Himself. The Old testament predicted the coming of Christ. History recorded it. We know He died and rose again. Secular historians have repeatedly tried and failed to discredit the Biblical record. Many have come to trust Christ as a result of their attempts. Ironic. Sir William Ramsay, for example, was an atheist who sought to prove that the Gospel of Luke (a book in the Bible's New testament). He not only came to the conclusion that Luke "...was an historian of the first order..." but also became a Christian. So, take it from a former atheist, Sir William Ramsay, read the Gospel of Luke. You can trust it and will learn alot about Jesus Christ. Because He rose again, He proved He has power over death...and we know we can trust Him. Someone said "Strong faith in a weak plank will get you wet...but weak faith in a strong plank will get you over the river." Jesus Christ came to live the perfect life we can't; one that satisfies God. Still, he paid the penalty that we owed (and He did not). I hope this helps... Tim
Oh, come on. First of all, the probability that one given person fulfills those prophecies may be very little, but as there are a whole lot of persons, the chance that someone will fulfill them is a lot greater. Second of all, I dare you to name 300 prophecies Jesus allegedly fulfilled. Third of all, the bible is not a reliable source for historic information. As for the religious leaders trying to kill Jesus - assuming that the story is true - assassination was a common way to get rid of unpleasant competitors in those times. It may as well (even better, because this approach doesn't need miracles) be that Jesus was a preacher who got too much attention, thus endangering the political influence of the priests. You didn't have to be god's son in order to get killed. In fact, this shows that even in those times no proof existed that Jesus was the son of god - who would have dared to kill him if there was? And, as always, the only remotely contemporary source of this story is the bible, which casts a big shadow of doubt on the whole thing. Last and least, Sir Ramsay. Apart from an atheist converting to christianity proving near nothing (There are christians who abandoned their faith as well), Sir Ramsay gave up on science very easily. He converted because he found that Luke's gospel contained names of governors, countries, cities and the like that were accurate and not known Ramsay's times. In Luke's days, however, these names were contemporary and thus should have been easy to find out. I can name a number of novels that name places accurately. Yet you won't believe that "Eye of the needle" is an accurate record of history.
*come on. First of all, the probability that one given person fulfills those prophecies may be very little, but as there are a whole lot of persons, the chance that someone will fulfill them is a lot greater.* **** 1 in 10 followed by 19 zeroes. Pretty slim to start with. and that is only for 10 of the 300. **** *Second of all, I dare you to name 300 prophecies Jesus allegedly fulfilled.* ***** If you were even serious in your "dare", would it make one whit of difference with you? As can be seen from other threads, such as one regarding Alethia's wallpaper "Vine and branches", you get very slippery when your claims are cornered. ****** *Third of all, the bible is not a reliable source for historic information.* ***** You are making a truth claim about the "innaccuracy" of scripture. Prove it. ***** *As for the religious leaders trying to kill Jesus - assuming that the story is true - assassination was a common way to get rid of unpleasant competitors in those times. It may as well (even better, because this approach doesn't need miracles) be that Jesus was a preacher who got too much attention, thus endangering the political influence of the priests.* **** Yup. THe pharisees sought to kill Jesus at least in part for that reason...he was touching their bubble! However, they did admit that they were angry with him because he claimed to be 'the Son of God'. No one at that time could make that claim...except Jesus. What's your point? ***** *And, as always, the only remotely contemporary source of this story is the bible, which casts a big shadow of doubt on the whole thing.* **** And again, we see your prejudice. If it's in the Bible, it must not be reliable. Again, where is your proof? For hundreds of years now, archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical. Yet, the scriptures led them to it! You are ignoring the evidence that is in front of you, yet you have the nerve to ask for more...such as wanting me to list 300 prophecies. And of course, you ignore the secular historical records of those who wrote of Christ... And you want more evidence (to ignore?)! Just how much evidence, or what kind, would *ever* be sufficient for you? **** *Last and least, Sir Ramsay. Apart from an atheist converting to christianity proving near nothing (There are christians who abandoned their faith as well).* ***** I said that there are many who have done the same. And they didn't become convinced overnight. Years as a matter of fact. These were not simpletons who just were looking for something to fill their empty heads. As far as 'christians' abandoning their faith, the Scriptures are plain that that true converts do not do so. 1 John states that "They went from us because they were not of us." Jesus said "The one who endures to the end shall be saved." The indicative is used to say "The saved ones are the ones who endure to the end." According to Jesus, not me, those who abandon their faith show that they were not for real to begin with. ***** *Sir Ramsay gave up on science very easily.* **** 30 years of research is giving up 'very easily'? Ramsay came to the conclusion that Luke was reliable after 30 years of research. Can you demonstrate that it is unreliable? **** Finally, in the "vine and branches" paper, you said you were giving up on all this stuff. You never did ultimately answer my questions there...or do you reserve the right to have one-sided discussions? -- tim
Oh...I would only add that Ramsay became a CHristian. He gave up on atheism, not science. Your statement implies that atheism=science. which also implies that christianity is opposed to science. that is not true. True science involves repeated testing and observation...the scientific method per Francis Bacon (who, by the way, was a follower of Jesus Christ). I hope this clarifies things...if not for you, then maybe for others who read this. Tim
....and of course, Jesus centered His whole life around fulfilling prophecies just to convince people of who He was...just to fool people... I suppose anyone in their right mind would really do this when they KNEW that involved being nailed to a cross? Oh yeah...and quoting part of Psalm 22 from the cross? Sure was dedicated to deception! Give it a rest. Of course, I believe He DID do all these things...not to decieve...but rather to show Who He was to those who were looking...who had "eyes to see and ears to hear". Ironic. You will allow someone to do all these things for no useful purpose...at their own ultimate loss...but you won't allow it to be an indicator that Jesus was Who He said He was! -- Ohhhkay. Tim
I'll just answer all three of your posts here. I will not answer the 'you slippery bastard' accusations, however, since that would amount to nothing. If you call me 'slippery' because I won't give simple answers to complicated questions, then so be it. And no, I still will not give simple answers to complicated questions. I hope that settles that. 1 in 10 followed by 19 zeroes. Pretty slim to start with. and that is only for 10 of the 300. Where did you get that number, and how was it calculated? One of the funny things about probability is that you can't put an exact figure on it. Probability depends on the preconditions one is willing to accept. Anyway, this is a minor matter. I agree that this resurrection thingy is very improbable. My point of view is that it did not happen, not that it was probable. You are making a truth claim about the "innaccuracy" of scripture. Prove it. There is a difference between inaccuracy and unreliability. Anyway, in a discussion about whether the bible is accurate, it is futile to assume that it is. Circular logic proves nothing. That is why in this discussion we cannot rely on the bible. As for my general claim, you have to prove the reliability, not the other way around. The concept of reliability dictates that - otherwise I could make some wild claims about invisible aliens infiltrating the UN and hold my claims reliable until they have been disproven. As for the inaccuracy - well, you asked for it. The bible contradicts itself on general occasions. There are two genesises, for example, with a slightly different schedule. Depending on which gospel you read, Jesus was born either in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, and similar stuff. THe pharisees sought to kill Jesus at least in part for that reason...he was touching their bubble! (...) What's your point? My point is that the pharisees trying to kill Jesus does not prove he was the son of god. The whole crucification thing proves precisely nothing. And of course, you ignore the secular historical records of those who wrote of Christ... Josephus Flavius reports the execution of 'Jacobus, brother of Jesus who was called "Christus"' in the Testimonium Flavonium, that is the one secular source I know that is partially held to be reliable. This particular paragraph is also believed to be unaltered by most historians. Keep in mind that history books were frequently censored, copied and...completed...by christian monks during the middle ages - other parts of the TF as we know it are held to be obvious forgeries. Ask a historian about it, if you don't believe me. As Josephus Flavius was born years after Jesus allegedly died, his testimony does not prove anything, though. There are also some other things that throw doubt on jesus. For example - why did he never write anything himself? Surely the son of god would know how to write? Don't get me wrong. I cannot disprove that Jesus existed, and I even think there probably was a troublesome wandering priest who got himself in deep trouble, but that's about it. It is important to keep in mind that there are serious doubts about even that. As far as 'christians' abandoning their faith, the Scriptures are plain that that true converts do not do so. And you have the nerve to call me slippery? I might as well say that someone who converts from atheism to christianity never really was an atheist, because he always latently believed that there was something. 30 years of research is giving up 'very easily'? Settling for names of places, kings and the like is 'giving up very easily'. If that took him thirty years, it's either a demonstration of thoroughness or incompetence, neither of which has anything to do with the accuracy of Luke's gospel. True science involves repeated testing and observation...the scientific method per Francis Bacon (who, by the way, was a follower of Jesus Christ). That is one method of science. It is also called 'experimental physics'. It is not the only kind of science. Understanding, for example, is a far more important part of it. Science is ultimately founded on mathematics. Ironic. You will allow someone to do all these things for no useful purpose...at their own ultimate loss...but you won't allow it to be an indicator that Jesus was Who He said He was! Sigh. Again, you don't understand. Even if Jesus fulfilled all your precious prophecies according to the bible (I remember one that took a lot of tweaking to make Jesus fit in - the messiah was meant to free the jewish people, and I guess there is more of them), that does not mean it really happened. The bible says that the bible is true, true. But that does not prove the bible true. Circular logic - you should get a grip on that one. Let us, for a moment, assume Jesus existed and died in 33 AD. The first gospel was not to be written for another 40 years. Forty years of oral history. Do you have any idea of what this can do to a story? Back when I was 17, there was an occasion when it took rumors two days to evolve from me and a girl kissing to me having a threesome with two girls. Now, imagine how a story can change in forty years.
**** I'll just answer all three of your posts here. I will not answer the 'you slippery bastard' accusations, however, since that would amount to nothing. If you call me 'slippery' because I won't give simple answers to complicated questions, then so be it. And no, I still will not give simple answers to complicated questions. I hope that settles that. **** I know oxdead won't "hear" this...but for those who by off-chance come by and read this, the "complicated questions" I asked had to do with his authority on KDELOOK. I asked him simply if he's an admin for the site; he had been acting as if he were the "submission police". Of course, the complicated part is because an honest answer will reveal he is just another user like you or me...and he'd have less "weight" to throw around. Ok. OxDeadBeef. AGain, you have taken my statements and completely circumnavigated my points. Go back and reread what I said and what you responded. You misrepresented me more than once. Basing the reliability of the scriptures on archaeology is not circular reasoning. Also, your "oral history" argument doesn't make it...40 years certainly allows for eyewitnesses to be alive...besides, you are presuming that *nothing was written*. ...and Luke explains this. Please, go read the first four verses of Luke 1. He explains what he did in writing the Gospel so that we could be "more certain" of what happened...according to eyewitnesses. So, if you want, keep rambling. Seems to me that you have simply decided to disbelieve no matter what...and that no matter where I go, there you are. Well, ok. Hope you have fun. TIm
Call me weak, but I just had to remind you that, once again, you seem totally unable to ignore the very stuff you don't like. Previously, you said you couldn't ignore my work because it wasn't "labeled" right. Well, the thumnail name is "God So Loved". So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one??? I'd love to know. Per the thread at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=9775&xexpand=all anyone can see it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit you are just another user like anyone else. Again, this wasn't as "complicated" as you would seem to be making it...except that answering my questions would nail you down to being responsible for your own choices... Tim
Call me weak, but I just had to remind you that, once again, you seem totally unable to ignore the very stuff you don't like. Previously, you said you couldn't ignore my work because it wasn't "labeled" right. Well, the thumnail name is "God So Loved". So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one??? I'd love to know. Per the thread at http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=9775&xexpand=all anyone can see it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit you are just another user like anyone else. Again, this wasn't as "complicated" as you would seem to be making it...except that answering my questions would nail you down to being responsible for your own choices... Tim
I asked him simply if he's an admin for the site; he had been acting as if he were the "submission police". Of course, the complicated part is because an honest answer will reveal he is just another user like you or me...and he'd have less "weight" to throw around. ----- The problem was that you demanded 'simply' yes or no as an answer, trying to prevent me from explaining myself. The part that apparently was too complicated for you to see was that it does not really matter whether I am or am not a kde-look admin, just as it doesn't matter whether you own the church when someone runs in and sacrifices a virgin in front of your nose. Basing the reliability of the scriptures on archaeology is not circular reasoning. ----- You have not presented archeological evidence that the bible was true. Parts of it, admitted, but not the important ones. I am ready to accept that Luke's gospels names some cities and kings accurately. But so does 'eye of the needle', which is still a fictious novel. Maybe you'd got this if you'd read what I wrote. To put it accurately: In a set of logical expressions a_0, ..., a_n where a_1, ..., a_m | m < n are true, it does not follow that a_(m+1), ..., a_n are true as well. The 'circular logics' comment were in other contexts. Also, your "oral history" argument doesn't make it...40 years certainly allows for eyewitnesses to be alive... ----- After 40 years, Mark's gospel was written. Luke's was about 50-60 years after Jesus allegedly died. Now calculate - Assuming Mark was an eye-witness (an apostle, if he is to tell the whole story accurately) and met Jesus at the age of, say, 20. They run around for three years, Mark travels around for 40 years telling the story, answering questions, making up answers for little enerving kids that nowadays would tell the Santa at the mall he wasn't real and so on. After that, he is 63 years old. That is a very respectable age for anyone in that age, especially when you've led a life on the road. Let us assume he still lived and was able to write, and suffered no illnesses, then 40 years is still a very long time, especially when you spent them telling the story in a way that was meant to convince people that Jesus was the son of god. Take Luke now - he would have been well in his seventies, if not eighties - ages that were rarely reached in those times, especially when you take that life-on-the-road thing into account. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I dare call it improbable. As for second hand-witnesses, that makes the reader a third-hand witness. Let there be a misunderstanding. The eye-witness reports 'Yeah, we were about 4000 people, and Jesus was feeding these guys with 7 breads and 2 fishes, if I recall correctly' and Luke understands 'Jesus fed 4000 people with 7 breads and 2 fishes'. Also, an eye-witness would have been pretty young when the actual event occured and pretty old when it was written down. I don't have unlimited confidence that he would remember correctly. And then there is always the possibility that Jesus was a fraud who tricked the people around him. besides, you are presuming that *nothing was written*. ----- By whom? The apostles are the only ones who knew the whole story, and most of them were fishermen. Not everybody could read back then, let alone write. So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one??? ----- Do I need an excuse? I was bored, mainly. And then, when I read your genuinely stupid comments, I couldn't hold my horses. Maybe I should know better than to fight fire with fire. Call it human weakness.
Well, I have to hand it to Tim, his wallpapers can bring up some interesting discussions. I have been watching this one and wasn’t planning on adding to it but I couldn’t resist ;) In answer to Oxydeadbeef Tim wrote And again, we see your prejudice. If it's in the Bible, it must not be reliable. Again, where is your proof? For hundreds of years now, archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical. Yet, the scriptures led them to it! Right…so according to Tim the fact that archaeologists have used the bible to find things that people said were mythical is proof that the bible is reliable. This is of course a nonsense argument. Take any religious/mythological text and you will find references to places and events from reality. For example many places mentioned in Greek mythology still exist today (e.g. the labyrinth on Crete, the temple at Delphi etc.etc.) and some events mentioned in Greek mythology are based on events that happened in reality. Archaeologists have used Greek mythology to help locate places (Troje?) and find things that people said were mythical. Using Tim’s logic this means that the stories Greek mythology must be a correct representation of realty of a few thousand years ago. Does this mean we can all expect to have to pay Charon to cross the river Styx when we die? When it comes to reliability of the bible I always ask myself: how do the scriptures as Tim likes to say fit in what we today know about the universe, the world, life etc. To me there seem to be many contradictions between the two. Last year Tim put up a wallpaper showing the Orion Nebula. I found this to be very ironic, since this Nebula is a so-called star nursery. The picture shows the creation of stars and possibly solar systems in progress. (And guess what..it takes more than 6 days) How about the fact that the earth existed billions of years before homo-sapiens existed. How about the dinosaurs, the several extinction events, evolution etc. etc.? How do they fit in? The answer is: they don’t. Of course some people like to take a pre-renaissance approach to all this and simply deny anything that doesn’t seem to fit in with the scriptures even if the evidence is right in front of their noses. Evolution, dinosaurs? Nah.. I don’t care how much evidence there is..it’s not in the book so it can’t be. The book is the only reliable source of the truth and that’s that. I can’t do that. For me there are to many inconsistencies between the bible and our knowledge to cal the bible reliable.
Sorry. I made a typo in the above. It was as follows: *Sir William Ramsay, for example, was an atheist who sought to prove that the Gospel of Luke (a book in the Bible's New testament).* I closed the parentheses and ended the sentence without adding "is unreliable". Thanks, I hope this clarifies my meaning. Tim