Tell me what you think, if God were to make Himself know how, do you suppose, would He do it?

That is the problem--he couldn't. Now an omnipotent being by definition can do anything, but this one remains impossible.

Let me do a digression to see if I can communicate why--although it is merely the fact that the gap between finite and infinite is infinite--a gap that nothing finite can cross.

My digression is whether or not the cosmos that came into existence with the Big Bang is infinite or not. We do know that it is big--really, really big.

If this universe is finite, it will at some point exhibit "curvature," so that it can close in on itself. If the curvature is zero or negative, this universe necessarily is infinite; if it is positive, this universe is finite.

(Without such curvature, one is presented with a boundary problem--"What is on the other side of the boundary?")

So astronomers naturally enough make measurements of this curvature, and, so far as we can tell, the universe is flat and hence infinite.

There is a problem, however, created by the inescapable fact that no measurement can ever be perfect. We can only measure something up to the limits of precision imposed by our measuring equipment. In the case of our universe, it turns out that this universe is at least 10^32 larger than the "Einsteinian Universe" (the universe we would ever be able to see with telescopes). Now this is only a minimum; there is no way we can say what the maximum is.

It might be that with an improvement in our technology, we might begin to detect curvature. We can never know--the end might be just around the corner.

Imagine an infinite deity who wants to tell you he exists and is infinite. So he comes to you and says, "I exist and am infinite."

There are three possibilities: 1. He is infinite. 2. He thinks he is infinite but is mistaken. 3. He is lying (the lie could be for the most honorable of reasons).

There is no way for you to know. Regardless of what wonders he might show you, you are finite and therefore could never know if there might be a boundary to him beyond your perception.

There is, then, no way for an infinite being to demonstrate its infinity to a finite being.

Understanding that, my view is that any claim from people to have received revelation of an infinite God is false. The actual existence of such a being cannot be known, and thereby becomes, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to our existence.

Don't you believe that you have the truth and I'm wrong? After all you have spent much time trying to correct me to the right way of thinking and as I recall you have corrected a few others on this site who don't believe as you do.
By your definition you are intolerant.
It's unfair to say that if you think you have the truth and everyone else is in error you are intolerant, because truth by definition excludes all other opposing views, which makes everyone intolerant, because everyone has a truth claim.
Intolerance is not allowing someone to have a different belief then yours. For instance there is the case of the Karen people of Burma, a Christian people persecuted by the government (if my facts are correct Burma has a Buddhist run government) because of their ethnicity and faith. Consider the rules in Islam for those who leave Islam and convert to Christ, death. There are many examples of intolerance around the world, but telling someone that what you believe is right and any world view that opposes it is wrong is not intolerance. For example when you tell me that I am wrong about my view of God, Jesus, and the Bible, does not make you intolerant.

You give examples of the harm intolerance can cause when the intolerant control the levers of power. Most intolerant people are not in such a position, but that doesn't make them tolerant.

We all think we are right; this is mechanical--if we become persuaded someone else is right, we will change our view--we do not "choose" to change our view--it happens automatically.

We all also know this has happened many times in our lives (unless we are a closed-minded dinosaur). So, if we were "wrong" back then but thought we were "right" back then, how much confidence are we entitled to have in our present views?

I am not saying we should not make the best decisions we can and even act on them (within bound), but I am saying we need to tolerate other views and just simply tell ourselves, no matter how outrageous they seem to us, a sentient human being holds them, so there must be something in them.

Some things, no doubt, are "true." Others, no doubt, are "false." Since we can never see the entire picture, we can only hope to approximate that--by cultivating knowledge, having an open mind, and accepting that we will often be wrong.

janrich456, why are you afraid to write the word *Buddha*............?!?!?

We are not to mention the names of false gods.

Ex 23:13

13 "And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods , nor let it be heard from your mouth.
NKJV

We are not to mention the names of false gods.

Ex 23:13

13 "And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods , nor let it be heard from your mouth.
NKJV
Again you demonstrate abysmal ignorance. "Buddha" is a title, not a name. There have been many "Buddhas." For all we know one walks the earth today.

When we say "The Buddha," we refer to a man who lived and died in India about 2500 years ago and is respected as the teacher who established the present Buddhist tradition. He is dead. The Buddha is dead.

As a matter of fact, the "Buddha" you see statues of in Japan and China and elsewhere is not him at all, but an entirely different figure.

We are not to mention the names of false gods.

Ex 23:13

13 "And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods , nor let it be heard from your mouth.
NKJV
A question on this regard--when you say. "B----a," I know what you mean, so you are mentioning his name anyway. Don't you see that?

Tell me what you think, if God were to make Himself know how, do you suppose, would He do it?

That is the problem--he couldn't. Now an omnipotent being by definition can do anything, but this one remains impossible.
He couldn't? This infinite being the one who created all that there is finds it impossible to make Himself known to his creation?
By "make Himself known" I don't mean how would God make us completely comprehend and understand Him. The Bible (in verses like Romans 11:33-36) teaches that we can't understand His ways.
However, can God let us know that He exists, or that He is infinite? Can He let us know that He created everything? Can He tell us that there is an objective moral right and wrong, or that He can hear our prayers?

Let me do a digression to see if I can communicate why--although it is merely the fact that the gap between finite and infinite is infinite--a gap that nothing finite can cross.
I totally agree with you there, but I'm not suggesting that the finite can cross the divide, I'm saying that the infinite can cross the divide.

My digression is whether or not the cosmos that came into existence with the Big Bang is infinite or not. We do know that it is big--really, really big.
Big to the finite, but to the being who created it and who transcends it, is it really that big?

If this universe is finite, it will at some point exhibit "curvature," so that it can close in on itself. If the curvature is zero or negative, this universe necessarily is infinite; if it is positive, this universe is finite.
(Without such curvature, one is presented with a boundary problem--"What is on the other side of the boundary?")
With or without the curvature isn't there a problem with what is beyond?

So astronomers naturally enough make measurements of this curvature, and, so far as we can tell, the universe is flat and hence infinite.
The "so far as we can tell" part of this quote leaves an incredible opening.

There is a problem, however, created by the inescapable fact that no measurement can ever be perfect. We can only measure something up to the limits of precision imposed by our measuring equipment. In the case of our universe, it turns out that this universe is at least 10^32 larger than the "Einsteinian Universe" (the universe we would ever be able to see with telescopes). Now this is only a minimum; there is no way we can say what the maximum is.
It might be that with an improvement in our technology, we might begin to detect curvature. We can never know--the end might be just around the corner.
Even if we found what we thought was the end, we wouldn't really know that it was the end.

Imagine an infinite deity who wants to tell you he exists and is infinite. So he comes to you and says, "I exist and am infinite."
Fine with me.

There are three possibilities: 1. He is infinite. 2. He thinks he is infinite but is mistaken. 3. He is lying (the lie could be for the most honorable of reasons).
How about 4. He is infinite and can tell us He is infinite?

There is no way for you to know. Regardless of what wonders he might show you, you are finite and therefore could never know if there might be a boundary to him beyond your
perception.
Sure, but there is a certain amount of faith to any world view, and the image of Himself that God has given us in the Bible is that He is Good, Righteous, Just, and Loving, I have personal events in my life that makes me that much more certain, but these events would mean nothing to an unbeliever.

There is, then, no way for an infinite being to demonstrate its infinity to a finite being.
I'm not suggesting that God would demonstrate His infinity, but He could tell us that He is infinite, and I might add that we could come to a logical conclusion that something has to be infinite, because to say different would be to suggest that something existed before it existed that would be illogical.

Understanding that, my view is that any claim from people to have received revelation of an infinite God is false. The actual existence of such a being cannot be known, and thereby becomes, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to our existence.
Here you are a finite being telling what an infinite being can or can not do.
I'd suggest that an infinite be can communicate with His creation, He can inspire a finite being to write what He wants Him to write. I'm suggesting that God did exactly that in the Bible...Old and New Testament. And He demonstrated wonders just in the Resurrection of Christ Himself.

YAHWEH does not live to serve any human. The earth and all that is in it is proof enough. He doesn't owe anyone any thing, He doesn't have to prove any thing. YAHWEH is ruler over the earth

Judg 2:16

16 Nevertheless, the LORD raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them.
NKJV

1 Kings 11:23

23 And God raised up another adversary against him,
NKJV

The earth and all that is in it is proof enough.
No it isn't. Faith, fine, you can have your faith, I don't really care. I lack it. The existence of Earth does not prove the existence of God.

No it isn't. Faith, fine, you can have your faith, I don't really care. I lack it. The existence of Earth does not prove the existence of God.


Like I've said numerous times I believe that there is a possibility of some creative force in the universe. Unfortunately I dont think any of us can ever know this for certain, not even when we die. I marvel at the complexity of the universe and I really do wish there to be an artist behind it. But I am a firm believer in science and all that it has shown us. Maybe science is the artist? I wouldnt be surprised at all if God ended up being a math equation.
No one on Earth knows for sure, but at least 3/4 of people pretend to know. When you look beyond yourself, and the planet we live on, it amazes me how people can be so self centered to think that God created the universe just for them and their religion.

When you look beyond yourself, and the planet we live on, it amazes me how people can be so self centered to think that God created the universe just for them and their religion.

Nicely put, Phyrex. :)

Like I've said numerous times I believe that there is a possibility of some creative force in the universe.
I created a steaming pile of shit in no less than three toilets today! That's a lot of creative force there!

You give examples of the harm intolerance can cause when the intolerant control the levers of power. Most intolerant people are not in such a position, but that doesn't make them tolerant.
You are right, because someone does not have power to subject people to their will does not make them tolerant, but my point is just because someone thinks their ideas are better then an opposing idea does not make them intolerant. If, however, you insist that it does make one intolerant then by your definition of intolerance you are extremely intolerant. Worse still, if you hold to your definition of intolerance, then coming in here, correcting others views to better fit your views, and then telling them that they shouldn't be intolerant, makes you not only intolerant, but also a hypocrite.
Now, don't get me wrong, because I disagree with your definition of intolerance, I don't think (from what I've read) that you are intolerant, I just think you are very certain that you believe you have the truth and want to introduce others to the "truth".

We all think we are right; this is mechanical--if we become persuaded someone else is right, we will change our view--we do not "choose" to change our view--it happens automatically.

We all also know this has happened many times in our lives (unless we are a closed-minded dinosaur). So, if we were "wrong" back then but thought we were "right" back then, how much confidence are we entitled to have in our present views?
Then by this logic, if you were "wrong back then" but thought you "right back then" and because of that shouldn't have much confidence in your present views, why do you "correct" others views?
I'm fine, by the way, that you do that, that's part of the exchange of ideas, but when you say such things, you contradict your own behavior.

I am not saying we should not make the best decisions we can and even act on them (within bound), but I am saying we need to tolerate other views and just simply tell ourselves, no matter how outrageous they seem to us, a sentient human being holds them, so there must be something in them.
My point...you say it but don't live it. Let me change that to: If you hold to your earlier definition of "intolerance" you say it but don't live it.

Some things, no doubt, are "true." Others, no doubt, are "false." Since we can never see the entire picture, we can only hope to approximate that--by cultivating knowledge, having an open mind, and accepting that we will often be wrong.
I'm fine with that, but I am curious as to what you consider is open mindedness.

I marvel at the complexity of the universe and I really do wish there to be an artist behind it. But I am a firm believer in science and all that it has shown us. Maybe science is the artist?[
Interesting. I always considered the findings of science as evidence for that "artist" you speak of, the One I call God, or most often Jesus.

When you look beyond yourself, and the planet we live on, it amazes me how people can be so self centered to think that God created the universe just for them and their religion.
I'm wondering what people and religion says God created the universe just for them and their religion.

I'm wondering what people and religion says God created the universe just for them and their religion.

Many Christians.

I'm wondering what people and religion says God created the universe just for them and their religion.

What would happen if we came into contact with life from another planet stark? Where would that put the worlds religions?

What would happen if we came into contact with life from another planet stark? Where would that put the worlds religions?
That doesn't answer my question as to what people and religions say that God created everything for them and their religion...I assuming you have your reasons, but to answer your question- I don't know about all the other religions, but if we came into contact with life forms from another planet, I'd say: "Wow! Life forms from another planet! I don"t how the discovery of life on another planet would be any problem to Christianity.


I'm wondering what people and religion says God created the universe just for them and their religion.

Many Christians.
Many? You must know more Christians then I do, 'cause I don't know any that say that.
That being said, it matters more what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches that God made everything for Him.
Now, just for fun, I'm going to ask the people in my church if they think God made everything for them and our religion.

That doesn't answer my question as to what people and religions say that God created everything for them and their religion...I assuming you have your reasons, but to answer your question- I don't know about all the other religions, but if we came into contact with life forms from another planet, I'd say: "Wow! Life forms from another planet! I don"t how the discovery of life on another planet would be any problem to Christianity.

If I had a copy of the Old Testament laying around maybe I could answer that question better. Namely by passages from Genesis.

It just seems to be that Christianity seems to evolve as time goes on to supress certain things and bring other things into the light that will benifit it. All the Gnostic books that were ommited. Old Testament, which is strkiningly different from the New. All to conform to todays understanding of the world. If we were to discover life on a planet beyond our own, especially intelligent life, the worlds religions would be shocked to the core, especially once that worship an omnipresent God.

Many? You must know more Christians then I do, 'cause I don't know any that say that.
That being said, it matters more what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches that God made everything for Him.
Now, just for fun, I'm going to ask the people in my church if they think God made everything for them and our religion.

It sure wasnt made for anyone that isnt a Christian.

If I had a copy of the Old Testament laying around maybe I could answer that question better. Namely by passages from Genesis.
I'd like to have you find a copy because I'm curious as to what scriptures you find saying that God made the universe for Christians and their religion.

It just seems to be that Christianity seems to evolve as time goes on to supress certain things and bring other things into the light that will benifit it.
It does? I don't know how that would be seeing as the teachings of Christianity were all written down before the end of the first century. I see you've mentioned the Gnostic books, I'll touch on those next, but is there anything else that I'm missing?

All the Gnostic books that were ommited.
First, which Gnostic writing is your favorite?
The Gnostic writings contradict the teachings of the Bible why should they be included? The Gnostics believed Jesus wasn't really a man, but a spirit who never left foot prints in the sand. The Bible teaches different. Unless I've got my facts wrong the earliest Gnostic book that has been found was the Gospel of Thomas and was written 150 A.D. by then the Books of the New Testament had already been written.

Old Testament, which is strkiningly different from the New.
In the Old Testament God set up a theocracy with instructions of how to live, work, eat, and worship in that theocracy, the Temple being the center of it all. There is the promise that His people would not get it right and that eventually there would be an arrival of one who would take the punishment for mankind and there would be a new covenant., the old covenant having been broken.
So yes the Old Testament is "strikingly" different from the New Testament, but it was supposed to be.

All to conform to todays understanding of the world.[
Today's understanding of the world happened long long after the Bible was put together.

If we were to discover life on a planet beyond our own, especially intelligent life, the worlds religions would be shocked to the core, especially once that worship an omnipresent God.[
Shocked??? Would only the religions be shocked?
I can't speak for all the other religions, but tell me, what is it about the existence of life on other planets that would change Christian teaching?



It sure wasnt made for anyone that isnt a Christian.
I'm assuming you're as sure of that as you are that life on other planets would cause a problem in Christianity.

Listen, in Genesis it says that God created Heaven and Earth. He created man in his image. Then He told them how they should live, and worship only Him. He commanded that they put no others before Him. Does this not, in so many words say that God created the world for those that follow Him?

In the first century after the death of Jesus the story of his death a ressurection did change many times. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all give differing accounts of what happened. The story getting more and more "interesting" for lack of a better term than was previously written. Was this done to get more followers for a burgoning religion? Maybe, I dont know their motives.

The Gnostic writtings do not contradict the teachings of the Bible so much as they contradict the foundations of Christianity itself. Such as the Gospel of Mary, and her supression as an apostle of Jesus, or more. And teachings of finding inner peace rather than salvation though suffering through life so that you may reach Heaven. Such things undermined the churches authority.

If I were in your shoes, and I found out that humans werent the only ones in the universe I would rethink most, if not all that I had been taught about Christianity. Did God create them as well? Why is there no mention of them? Do they go to Heaven to when they die? Are they subject to Gods laws? If they are subject to Gods laws, did Jesus die for their sins as well? Can they be saved? Were they created in Gods image as well? (They most assuredly wont look like us) There are a lot of question you would have to ask yourself.

According to Christianity, anyone who does not believe that Christ is the Son of God, saviour of makind will be judged and sent to hell. Does this mean that I will go to hell because I believe that Jesus was a real man, with good teachings, but was not the Son of God? If so, then why am I even on this planet if the omnipresent ever loving God is going to send me to hell because i dont have unquestioned faith in His son.

And why is Jesus better than Allah, or Budda? Why are they heathens that are going to hell? Why did Gandhi go to hell? Why does anyone who is a good person go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus? The same goes for any religion, not just Christianity.

My point...you say it but don't live it. Let me change that to: If you hold to your earlier definition of "intolerance" you say it but don't live it.
I'm fine with that, but I am curious as to what you consider is open mindedness.

You slip by the issue. The issue is the Christian claim that only it is "true" and all other religons are "false." This is intolerant.

My view is that all religions represent the same truths, seen from different persepctives by people with limited access to the whole picture, which makes the religions seem more different than they really are. The seeming incompatibility of the world's religions is an illusion. Teachings of this sort are tolerant.

The key element, in my opinion, of open mindedness, is the discipline to force oneself to entertain other points of view, looking for the positives and not rejecting at all. The main aspect of this discipine is becoming informed in detail of those things one things are false (most people avoid reading, let alone studying, things they disagree with).

The word is translated "mindfulness" (which encompasses a lot of other things besides just open-mindedness) includes not making true/false judgments. One sees but does not decide. One learns facts but does not interpret. (This means being neither a cynical rejecter nor a credulous believer).

This state is very difficult, maybe impossible, but it can be approached, and thereby one leaves oneself ready and able to perceive things the way others, rather than ourselves, perceive them.

Listen, in Genesis it says that God created Heaven and Earth. He created man in his image. Then He told them how they should live, and worship only Him. He commanded that they put no others before Him. Does this not, in so many words say that God created the world for those that follow Him?
No, this in so many words, says that God wants us to obey Him.

In the first century after the death of Jesus the story of his death a ressurection did change many times. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all give differing accounts of what happened. The story getting more and more "interesting" for lack of a better term than was previously written. Was this done to get more followers for a burgoning religion? Maybe, I dont know their motives.
Would you give an example from Mark, Luke, Matthew, and I'll throw in John, where the stories contradict each other? The different Gospels give an account of the Resurrection from different points of view, and written by different personalities. If you take all the Gospel accounts and put them together you find that they all fit together and give a more complete account of what happened then if you took just one Gospel account.

The Gnostic writtings do not contradict the teachings of the Bible so much as they contradict the foundations of Christianity itself.
The foundation of Christianity is the Bible.

Such as the Gospel of Mary, and her supression as an apostle of Jesus, or more.
Or more? What's the or more. The early church considered Mary the Apostle to the Apostles because she was the first to proclaim the bodily resurrection of Christ. I don't see where the suppression comes in.

And teachings of finding inner peace rather than salvation though suffering through life so that you may reach Heaven. Such things undermined the churches authority.
Such things undermined the teachings of Jesus Christ as did many of the teachings of the Gnostics. One of those teachings is that a woman couldn't enter heaven, and that Jesus would have to turn her into a man so that she could enter...totally undermining what the Bible really teaches.

If I were in your shoes, and I found out that humans werent the only ones in the universe I would rethink most, if not all that I had been taught about Christianity.
Really? On what grounds?

Did God create them as well?
If the Biblical teaching, that God created everything that was created, is true then, yes.

Why is there no mention of them?
The Bible is a history of God's redemptive plan for mankind, not a history of the world or of the Universe.

Do they go to Heaven to when they die?
I don't know

Are they subject to Gods laws?
I can only assume that all of creation is subject to the Laws of God, my question is; are they the same laws?

If they are subject to Gods laws, did Jesus die for their sins as well? Can they be saved?
Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind, including yours if you accept, but not for other beings. I'm of course speaking in the context of Christ's death on earth.

Were they created in Gods image as well? (They most assuredly wont look like us)
Are you certain that to be made in the image of God is to look like God? Could it mean something else like having certain attributes that God also has.

There are a lot of question you would have to ask yourself.
Any questions that would be damaging to Christianity?

According to Christianity, anyone who does not believe that Christ is the Son of God, saviour of makind will be judged and sent to hell.
Actually Satan believes that Christ is the Son of God, and the savior of mankind, he still is God's enemy. Believing is a start, the next step is to make accept his death as payment for your sins, and accept him as Lord of your life. Romans says that if you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.

Does this mean that I will go to hell because I believe that Jesus was a real man, with good teachings, but was not the Son of God?
The problem is that if you only believe Jesus was a real man, with good teachings you have a Jesus that is only a man, this is different Jesus then the Jesus that died for our sins.
Speaking of the teachings of Jesus...Jesus taught that he was the way the truth and the life, and that no one can come to God accept through him.

If so, then why am I even on this planet if the omnipresent ever loving God is going to send me to hell because i dont have unquestioned faith in His son.
It's not for me to say why you are here...it could be that God has incredible plans for your life...it could be that you will, one day, accept Jesus as your savior and Lord. I don't know the future that's God's domain, but I hope you do find the love and plan that God has for you.

And why is Jesus better than Allah, or Budda?
Allah, Buddha, and every other founder of religion seek to make bad men good, Jesus came to make dead men alive, (spiritually).

Why are they heathens that are going to hell? Why did Gandhi go to hell? Why does anyone who is a good person go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus? The same goes for any religion, not just Christianity.
It's not from me to judge whether Gandhi has gone to hell, that is also God's domain, and good people don't go to hell, the problem is that know one is truly good. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
The problem is that those who don't accept God's gift of salvation (the payment of sins by Jesus Christ) will have to pay the penalty for their sins and that penalty is eternal separation from the presence of God and all that includes.

You slip by the issue. The issue is the Christian claim that only it is "true" and all other religons are "false." This is intolerant.
Tell me, does classical Buddhism teach that Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are all true?

My view is that all religions represent the same truths, seen from different persepctives by people with limited access to the whole picture, which makes the religions seem more different than they really are.
What do you suppose Jesus meant when he said, "I am the way and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me."
If Christianity is true, all other religions have to be false, if Buddhism is true all other religions have to false, if Islam is true all other religions have to be false, it's the nature of a truth claim, but all religions can not be true.

The seeming incompatibility of the world's religions is an illusion. Teachings of this sort are tolerant.
Those teachings are only tolerant of those who teach the same thing, but they are not tolerant of those who teach the opposite.

The key element, in my opinion, of open mindedness, is the discipline to force oneself to entertain other points of view, looking for the positives and not rejecting at all. The main aspect of this discipine is becoming informed in detail of those things one things are false (most people avoid reading, let alone studying, things they disagree with).

The word is translated "mindfulness" (which encompasses a lot of other things besides just open-mindedness) includes not making true/false judgments. One sees but does not decide. One learns facts but does not interpret. (This means being neither a cynical rejecter nor a credulous believer).
By your definitions of tolerance and open mindedness, you are neither. But I think your definitions are not correct so you could be both tolerant and open minded.

This state is very difficult, maybe impossible, but it can be approached, and thereby one leaves oneself ready and able to perceive things the way others, rather than ourselves, perceive them.
You say it here, but your posts on this site suggest you don't believe it or at least you don't live it.

No, this in so many words, says that God wants us to obey Him.

But if He created the world, and man, and told them that He wanted every person to follow Him, dont you think that that would mean he created the Earth for His followers? Otherwise, why would he even bother.

Would you give an example from Mark, Luke, Matthew, and I'll throw in John, where the stories contradict each other? The different Gospels give an account of the Resurrection from different points of view, and written by different personalities. If you take all the Gospel accounts and put them together you find that they all fit together and give a more complete account of what happened then if you took just one Gospel account.

Well its not just the ressurection, but other things as well. Such as Matthew stating that Jesus is a decendant of David, and was in line to be king. Yet Mark said Jesus was a poor carpenter. Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus birth. Matthew says the lived in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born in a house, not a manger. John says the crusifixion took place on the day before passover, but Luke, Matthew, and Mark say the day after. Matthew and Mark say Jesus' last words were "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Luke says it was "Father in your hands I commit my spirit." and John says it was "It is finished"

And as for the ressurection, and the story changing as time went by. Lets see, Mark was first. He said that all the disciples of Jesus ran They dont go to Galilee to meet Christ. There are no angels, or burial shrouds, or any of that stuff mentioned. And the person that announces the ressurection is nothing but a man dressed in white. Then comes Matthew, he says the angels announce Jesus' ressurection. And here, instead of running away, the women, including Mary, enter the tomb then run and tell the disciples. In Matthews account Jesus talks to them, and tells them he will always be with them among other things. Next was Luke, who adds more to the story. After the women discover the empty tomb they go tell the disiples, and then Peter proceeds to go to the tomb to check it out. He finds a burial shroud. Then he gives the account of Jesus traveling around and meeting disiples and even sharing meals with them, and dissapearing when they recognize him. Luke is also the only one to mention Christs rise into Heaven. Then there is John, who writes his Gospel nearly 100 years after Christs death. John wrote a wholy different account by the looks of it. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, Last Supper was the day before Passover, the crusifixion on the day of. All different from the other three. And in John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, alone and finds it empty. She thinks the body was stolen. Then she comes back with Peter, to find two angels, who turn into Jesus..

And id God was the inspiration for these writings, why would he change the story so much, making it more and more miraculous as time went on?


The foundation of Christianity is the Bible.

Or more? What's the or more. The early church considered Mary the Apostle to the Apostles because she was the first to proclaim the bodily resurrection of Christ. I don't see where the suppression comes in.

What I meant by foundation, is the fact that Jesus is the son of God, and the saviour of mankind. Do you deny that the early church shed Mary in an unfavorable light? Then there is the whole story that they were possibly lovers. Also, Jesus wanted her to take over for him, and they possibly concieved a child. If that were the case, Jesus was a mere mortal. Also there is mention of Jesus travels to the far east, all those missing years, and how eastern religions may have influinced him. All of that stuff was burried by the church, and anyone who mentioned it was deemed a heritic.

As for the whole life on other planets point, im a little amazed that this wouldnt have any bearing on your understanding of the universe and God. If your faith is that strong, I commend you. And if the questions I presented about that point dont make you wonder a little, then Idont know what else I can say about it.

Actually Satan believes that Christ is the Son of God, and the savior of mankind, he still is God's enemy. Believing is a start, the next step is to make accept his death as payment for your sins, and accept him as Lord of your life. Romans says that if you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead you will be saved. Of course Satan believes, the reason Satan is in hell is because him and 1/3 of the other angels in Heaven decided to wage war on God, and lost. Your point here is invalid.

As for the believeing part, can anyone who confesses that Jesus is the messiah, and pledges his heart to Jesus be saved? Anyone? Hitler, Ted Bundy, Nero, any of those guys? What would happen if they confessed, and truly believed?


The problem is that if you only believe Jesus was a real man, with good teachings you have a Jesus that is only a man, this is different Jesus then the Jesus that died for our sins.
Speaking of the teachings of Jesus...Jesus taught that he was the way the truth and the life, and that no one can come to God accept through him.
So says Christianity.

It's not for me to say why you are here...it could be that God has incredible plans for your life...it could be that you will, one day, accept Jesus as your savior and Lord. I don't know the future that's God's domain, but I hope you do find the love and plan that God has for you.

Im not a big believer in fate, and if God has a plan, why doesnt he simply plan for everyone to be a Christian? He could put Satan out of a job, and make the world a great place. But if God does have a plan, why do we have free will to do what we want, not to follow Christ if we so choose? Or do we not have free will, and everything that we do is simply Gods plan?

Allah, Buddha, and every other founder of religion seek to make bad men good, Jesus came to make dead men (spiritually) alive.

Almost all religions teach basically the same thing. Allah will make you spiritually alive as well when you die, so will Buddah, and the Hindu Gods, and Jesus, if you follow their teachings of course.


It's not from me to judge whether Gandhi has gone to hell, that is also God's domain, and good people don't go to hell, the problem is that no one is truly good. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
The problem is that those who don't accept God's gift of salvation (the payment of sins by Jesus Christ) will have to pay the penalty for their sins and that penalty is eternal separation from the presence of God and all that includes.

And I suppose this stems from eating the forbbidien fruit in the Garden of Eden right. Every person in born into sin because of what Eve did? Let me ask you this, how old do you believe the Earth to be?

Ok, well that was fun, and it took like over an hour and a half because I had to look a lot of that stuff up in the good book itself, but hey. Anything to make a point. Im not trying to completely diss your beliefs here Stark, I dont look down on anyone for their religious beliefs, ans long as they arent completely radical (in a bad way). If you belive that Jesus is your savior so be it, Im just trying to understand, and I dont claim to know the truth.

Tell me, does classical Buddhism teach that Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are all true?

The Buddha taught that we should always look for the good in all relgions and understand that it is not our place to attack them. That I am less than a good Buddhist in this respect should be obvious. The teaching is not exactly that all religions are "true," but that "truth," to a finite being, is an illusion.


What do you suppose Jesus meant when he said, "I am the way and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me."


It is one of many passages that reflect the Mithraic origin of Christian thinking, since all of the "mystery cults" taught that the only way to salvation was through their betrayed/killed/ressurrected demiurge.

There are many passages that reflect early Christian intolerance. This is only one of them.


If Christianity is true, all other religions have to be false, if Buddhism is true all other religions have to false, if Islam is true all other religions have to be false, it's the nature of a truth claim, but all religions can not be true.


As I said, one looks at religion benignly, without making true/false judgments. I fear you are so imbued with the Western tradition that we can know "truth" that you don't realize how what seems to us to be contradiction can really be only limits to our perception. In the old story about the blind men feeling the elephant, the one who reports on the leg must think the one who reports on the tail is a liar, and vice-versa--but it is only their limits that prevent their seeing the entire picture.


Those teachings are only tolerant of those who teach the same thing, but they are not tolerant of those who teach the opposite.


What is "the same thing;" what is "the opposite?"


By your definitions of tolerance and open mindedness, you are neither. But I think your definitions are not correct so you could be both tolerant and open minded.


Perhaps you could try your hand at offering a definition.


You say it here, but your posts on this site suggest you don't believe it or at least you don't live it.


I am not a Christian; I don't believe it. That does not mean I think it is "false." That much of Christianity seems a lie to me cannot be denied, but, then, maybe we are feeling different parts of the elephant.

There is another analogy the Buddha and many others have used, that of crossing a mountain. There may be only one path, but there probably are many, and some may seem to lead in entirely the wrong direction for long periods of time.

The Buddha's discovery was a way, but he does not say his is the only way. Regardless, we are each individually responsible only for ourselves; out of compassion we may try to help others, but in the end each must take whatever path they think is right for them.

But if He created the world, and man, and told them that He wanted every person to follow Him, dont you think that that would mean he created the Earth for His followers? Otherwise, why would he even bother.
Don't I think? No I think God created everything for Himself. Why would He bother? I don't know, I guess He wanted to.

Well its not just the ressurection, but other things as well. Such as Matthew stating that Jesus is a decendant of David, and was in line to be king. Yet Mark said Jesus was a poor carpenter.
Are you saying that if your distant ancestors were Kings you have to be rich? Remember the wealth of Israel was taken away by Nebuchadrezzar hundreds of years before Christ.

Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus birth. Matthew says the lived in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born in a house, not a manger.
Here are a few points to defuse this problem:
1) The nativity scene that is shown every Christmas is not Biblically accurate, the "wise men" were not present at the night of the birth of Jesus, notice Luke doesn't mention them.
2) Matthew doesn't cover the night of Jesus' birth, he instead chose to cover the arrival of the wise men some days later.
3) Jesus was born in the manger, it's only reasonable that Joseph and Mary would have moved out of the cave and into a home as soon as possible, thus you see that by the time the wise men showed up they were no longer in the cave.
3) Mary and Joseph didn't stay in Bethlehem all that long, if you notice in Matthew 2:12 you see that because of a warning Mary and Joseph went back to "their country by another route." It was after that when we find Mary Joseph and Jesus escaping to Egypt.
There is no problem here.

I'll work on more of your post later.

Okay, time for a little more:
John says the crusifixion took place on the day before passover, but Luke, Matthew, and Mark say the day after.
I'm not sure of the problem here, would you mind pinpointing it...chapter and verse? Just in case the problem is what I think it may be, here's this; remember the Feast of Unleavened Bread was more then one day, and that the Jews, who were turning Jesus over to the Romans in John 18:28, were possibly running late in their partaking of the Passover meal. But I understand that I may not be understanding the problem.

One time I tried to make a chart of the events narrated in the four resurrection stories. Try it--it is not possible. The Synoptics differ in all sorts of details, and the story in John is completely different.

The same thing applies to the Nativity stories found in Luke and in Matthew. They are wildly discordant. Any objective reader can see this at a glance.

It is true that with enough imagination and determination, scenarios can be invented to "harmonize" almost anything. Belief based on such rationalization is foolish and even delusional.

Don't I think? No I think God created everything for Himself. Why would He bother? I don't know, I guess He wanted to.
Aw, you can do better than that. He created out of love--to give life to others.


Are you saying that if your distant ancestors were Kings you have to be rich? Remember the wealth of Israel was taken away by Nebuchadnezzar hundreds of years before Christ.

This response is shown as from a statement from me that I did not make. I am curious though how it is that Matthew and Luke have such different lists. Saying one is of Mary won't do, since no Hebrew reckoned descent through the woman, and such a claim (Jesus born of a woman in the line of David) would be rejected. On the other hand, since Joseph was not technically Jesus' father either, he wouldn't qualify either, except by law, but not spiritually.

One time I tried to make a chart of the events narrated in the four resurrection stories. Try it--it is not possible. The Synoptics differ in all sorts of details, and the story in John is completely different.

The same thing applies to the Nativity stories found in Luke and in Matthew. They are wildly discordant. Any objective reader can see this at a glance.

It is true that with enough imagination and determination, scenarios can be invented to "harmonize" almost anything. Belief based on such rationalization is foolish and even delusional.
It's so easy to just make that claim and wait to see if anyone takes you up on the challenge, but so much harder to go and chart out the events to demonstrate that is is possible. However in this case, I think I've got it saved somewhere, and if I find it, I'll just cut and paste.

I am dead serious and do not appreciate being called a liar. Do it!

Well, I spoke just a tad bit to soon, I can't seem to find it, but I'll keep looking and if I don't find mine I'll see if I can rip one off from the net...is that cheating?

Liar? Who called you a liar?

It's so easy to just make that claim and wait to see if anyone takes you up on the challenge.

If that isn't calling me a liar I don't know what is.

Look, I understand you tend to get rather personal with the name calling and little insults when you debate, I'm fine with that, but I try not to go that way. If you feel like I've called you a liar, you are feeling wrong, but this is as far as I go, to defend myself, in this case. I wasn't even considering that you hadn't tried to harmonize the resurrection stories.

I've found a chronology of the resurrection event using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (in a book) and will post it, but I'm going to continue looking for the one I did. The problem is that I did it seven years ago and am not sure where it is.

I found it. Now it's a bit long and I'm going to have to type it all out, but not now because I've got to get my Sunday School class ready, so I'll write it out later.
Phyrex I haven't forgotten the rest of your post, I'm just a bit side tracked.

I found it. Now it's a bit long and I'm going to have to type it all out, but not now because I've got to get my Sunday School class ready, so I'll write it out later.
Phyrex I haven't forgotten the rest of your post, I'm just a bit side tracked.

Im in no hurry, ill rebuttle once you get it all done.

Im in no hurry, ill rebuttle once you get it all done.
I have to wonder what stretching and twisting of the text is needed. I know I was not able to find a way to make them fit. If all you have is rationalization, please don't bother.

Look, I understand you tend to get rather personal with the name calling and little insults when you debate, I'm fine with that, but I try not to go that way. If you feel like I've called you a liar, you are feeling wrong, but this is as far as I go, to defend myself, in this case. I wasn't even considering that you hadn't tried to harmonize the resurrection stories.
Please don't try to be holy. It won't work.

I have to wonder what stretching and twisting of the text is needed. I know I was not able to find a way to make them fit. If all you have is rationalization, please don't bother.

Thislin, what are you talking about? Did you even read what I posted, Im blatenly challeging the Bible, not defending it. That I leave to Stark.

(Yikes, triple post lol, Ill just edit those other two below. Dumb comp)

(edit:see above)

(edit: see above)

Thislin, what are you talking about? Did you even read what I posted, Im blatenly challeging the Bible, not defending it. That I leave to Stark.

(Yikes, triple post lol, Ill just edit those other two below. Dumb comp)
Sorry you misunderstood me. I was addressing Stark. I know where you are.

Sorry you misunderstood me. I was addressing Stark. I know where you are.
Looking at my answer, I see I may have confused matters even more. What I posted was an amplification of your words, not a contradiction. At least that was what I intended to do.

Looking at my answer, I see I may have confused matters even more. What I posted was an amplification of your words, not a contradiction. At least that was what I intended to do.

Oh alright then. Its cool.

Okay, I finally did find the harmonization of the Gospel accounts that I had written, but it seemed a tad bit long so I've tweaked it here and there, and this is what I've come up with.
What I'm going to do is build this from the account of the resurrection by Matthew, and add in the other Gospels as needed.
As you read the accounts of Jesus' resurrection remember these points:
1) These Gospels were written a couple of thousand years ago and from men in an entirely different culture from ours, and all representing a different point of view of the event.
2) Just because one Gospel mentions that there were two angels and another speaks of one angel does not make it a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if one story said two angels and the other story said there was only one.
3) Just because one account includes more women then another, doesn't make it a contradiction. It may be that the author simply didn't name all the women or in the case of the Book of John we find him focusing only on the story of Mary Magdalene. As an example, if I went bowling with Bill, Ted, Brian, Sam, and Fred and the next day told my wife that Ted and I had gone bowling, would that be an inaccurate account of bowling night? No. Or if I told my mother that I had gone bowling with Ted and Brian, would that be a real contradiction of the story I told my wife? No. Of course if I had said that only Ted and I had gone bowling that would be a contradiction of the facts.
So with that here is what I've got:

Matt 28:1-11
1 "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."
We know from Mark 16:1 that the other Mary is Mary the mother of James, and Mark also lists Salome, and Luke 24:10 includes Joanna. So when we put Matthew, Mark, and Luke, together we know that the women who went to the tomb was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome and Joanna.
2 "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."
We know from Mark 16:3 that on the way to the tomb the woman were wondering who would roll the stone away for them.
From Mark 16:5 and Luke 24:4 we know that the Angels didn't stay on the rock, that they moved inside the tomb before the group of women arrived.
And from John 20:2 we learn that as soon as Mary Magdalene saw that the stone had been removed she assumed that someone had stolen the Body and so she ran off to tell Peter and John.
3 "His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men."
Once the women, minus Mary Magdalene, arrived they went into the tomb, and from Luke 24:4 we know that right away the woman noticed the body of Jesus missing, and then noticed the angels.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.
We know from Luke 24:5 that in the tomb after they saw the angels, the woman bowed down with their faces to the ground.
6 "He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
Luke 24:5-7 reveals to us that the angels had more to say then what Matthew records.
8 "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples."
Mark 16:8 reveals that at first the woman were too afraid to go to the Apostles. One question is how much time passed between when the woman left the tomb and when Christ appeared to them? I can't be certain, but we know from John 20:2-17 what some of the events were that transpired during this time. Here are the verses:

John 20:2-17
So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"
"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."
At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Now, after Jesus met with Mary he apparently went and appeared to the group of women, which is where I'll continue in Matthew 28:9:
9 "Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."
We know from Luke 24:10 that sometime after Jesus' instruction to the women, but before they got to the Apostles, the group of women and Mary Magdalene met up with each othedr and together told the Apostles.
From Luke 24:9 we know that after Peter and John saw the empty tomb, in John chapter 20, they went back with the other Apostles and were there when the women reported to them about seeing Jesus.
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
(NIV)

Look carefully at the text in all four Gospel accounts, if you think you see a contradiction ask yourself if it really is a contradiction. For example in John 20:18 it tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" Yet Luke 24:10 says that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them were the ones who told this to the Apostles. Is this a contradiction? No. Just because John records Mary Magdalene's story and excludes the others doesn't mean he has contradicted any of the other accounts, he just had a different focus.

I just noticed that in many cases, when I mention one of the other Gospels I say something to the effect of "we know from..." In many cases what I mean is that from scripture x we can reason...what ever the point is.

Okay, I finally did find the harmonization of the Gospel accounts that I had written, but it seemed a tad bit long so I've tweaked it here and there, and this is what I've come up with.
What I'm going to do is build this from the account of the resurrection by Matthew, and add in the other Gospels as needed.
As you read the accounts of Jesus' resurrection remember these points:
1) These Gospels were written a couple of thousand years ago and from men in an entirely different culture from ours, and all representing a different point of view of the event.
2) Just because one Gospel mentions that there were two angels and another speaks of one angel does not make it a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if one story said two angels and the other story said there was only one.
3) Just because one account includes more women then another, doesn't make it a contradiction. It may be that the author simply didn't name all the women or in the case of the Book of John we find him focusing only on the story of Mary Magdalene. As an example, if I went bowling with Bill, Ted, Brian, Sam, and Fred and the next day told my wife that Ted and I had gone bowling, would that be an inaccurate account of bowling night? No. Or if I told my mother that I had gone bowling with Ted and Brian, would that be a real contradiction of the story I told my wife? No. Of course if I had said that only Ted and I had gone bowling that would be a contradiction of the facts.
So with that here is what I've got:

Look carefully at the text in all four Gospel accounts, if you think you see a contradiction ask yourself if it really is a contradiction. For example in John 20:18 it tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" Yet Luke 24:10 says that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them were the ones who told this to the Apostles. Is this a contradiction? No. Just because John records Mary Magdalene's story and excludes the others doesn't mean he has contradicted any of the other accounts, he just had a different focus.

I conclude that the accounts do contradict (I can read) and you need to explain it away, so you go into all this rationalization.

It really doesn't much matter that they contradict, since they don't record real, physical history, anyway. They are myths.

Don't misunderstand this too much. Because something is not real physical history does not mean it cannot be of immense spiritual importance and worth. Stories are a sort of spiritual vocabulary for concepts we cannot really express in words.

From the Buddhist tradition, for example, is the myth of the Buddha's royal birth and secluded life, and how in three events he discovered the reality of suffering in the world. This is a myth. If Gautama even actually existed as a person, he was not royalty (the Sutras most directly connected with him do not make any such allusion), and the story is just too neat and pat to be real. (It does benefit from having less in it of a "supernatural" nature, but then Buddhism, while not rejecting supernaturalism, does not make claims either).

It, like the Jesus story, was made up to convey a message in a story that is hard to put into words--the story of suffering and the difficulty we have in perceiving this suffering--Guatama perceived it more clearly because, according to the story, he had no experience of it until on day he had three events impress it on him.

I just noticed that in many cases, when I mention one of the other Gospels I say something to the effect of "we know from..." In many cases what I mean is that from scripture x we can reason...what ever the point is.

Do you "reason" or do you rationalize--look for passages that you can use to explain away difficulties?

The Bible is a large book and a lot of people pour over it regularly, so that the exercise of finding some other passage to "interpret" a given passage in a manner other than what the text actually says is not difficult, but is also unimpressive.

I note also that you keep referring to the different authors having different "perspectives." This does explain a lot of the problems, but in a way you won't like. What it shows is that they each made up things, and were not in direct contact. Also, they drew from oral as well as written sources, neither of which we can do more than make educated guesses about.

And the contradictions are...?

And the contradictions are...?

Well its not just the ressurection, but other things as well. Such as Matthew stating that Jesus is a decendant of David, and was in line to be king. Yet Mark said Jesus was a poor carpenter. Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus birth. Matthew says the lived in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born in a house, not a manger. John says the crusifixion took place on the day before passover, but Luke, Matthew, and Mark say the day after. Matthew and Mark say Jesus' last words were "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Luke says it was "Father in your hands I commit my spirit." and John says it was "It is finished"

And as for the ressurection, and the story changing as time went by. Lets see, Mark was first. He said that all the disciples of Jesus ran They dont go to Galilee to meet Christ. There are no angels, or burial shrouds, or any of that stuff mentioned. And the person that announces the ressurection is nothing but a man dressed in white. Then comes Matthew, he says the angels announce Jesus' ressurection. And here, instead of running away, the women, including Mary, enter the tomb then run and tell the disciples. In Matthews account Jesus talks to them, and tells them he will always be with them among other things. Next was Luke, who adds more to the story. After the women discover the empty tomb they go tell the disiples, and then Peter proceeds to go to the tomb to check it out. He finds a burial shroud. Then he gives the account of Jesus traveling around and meeting disiples and even sharing meals with them, and dissapearing when they recognize him. Luke is also the only one to mention Christs rise into Heaven. Then there is John, who writes his Gospel nearly 100 years after Christs death. John wrote a wholy different account by the looks of it. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, Last Supper was the day before Passover, the crusifixion on the day of. All different from the other three. And in John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, alone and finds it empty. She thinks the body was stolen. Then she comes back with Peter, to find two angels, who turn into Jesus.

And id God was the inspiration for these writings, why would he change the story so much, making it more and more miraculous as time went on?

(I posted this once already on the last page, and if you cant see what happened here, your blind)

2) Just because one Gospel mentions that there were two angels and another speaks of one angel does not make it a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if one story said two angels and the other story said there was only one.
3) Just because one account includes more women then another, doesn't make it a contradiction. It may be that the author simply didn't name all the women or in the case of the Book of John we find him focusing only on the story of Mary Magdalene. As an example, if I went bowling with Bill, Ted, Brian, Sam, and Fred and the next day told my wife that Ted and I had gone bowling, would that be an inaccurate account of bowling night? No. Or if I told my mother that I had gone bowling with Ted and Brian, would that be a real contradiction of the story I told my wife? No. Of course if I had said that only Ted and I had gone bowling that would be a contradiction of the facts.

As for #2, One story says there were angels and another says there were none. Which is more contradictory than the example you used.
And #3, John says Mary went the tomb, by herself. The others say she went with other women. That is a contradiction.

Phyrex which Gospel says there were no angels?

Phyrex which Gospel says there were no angels?

Do you not read what I write? Mark. I said it in my above statement, which is a repost of a part of my earlier post.

Sorry about missing that, I was skimming your post and getting lunch. I did notice that the beginning of your post asked the same questions that you have asked earlier, such as the problem of Jesus being poor, and what you say is a birth contradiction.
Here it is from your post on page 22 post # 323:
Well its not just the ressurection, but other things as well. Such as Matthew stating that Jesus is a decendant of David, and was in line to be king. Yet Mark said Jesus was a poor carpenter. Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus birth. Matthew says the lived in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born in a house, not a manger. John says the crusifixion took place on the day before passover, but Luke, Matthew, and Mark say the day after.
There is more from that post that I will be getting to, but I was side tracked with the resurrection problem. However I already answered that much of your post in post #325. I said, about the birth of Christ problem this:
Here are a few points to defuse this problem:
1) The nativity scene that is shown every Christmas is not Biblically accurate, the "wise men" were not present at the night of the birth of Jesus, notice Luke doesn't mention them.
2) Matthew doesn't cover the night of Jesus' birth, he instead chose to cover the arrival of the wise men some days later.
3) Jesus was born in the manger, it's only reasonable that Joseph and Mary would have moved out of the cave and into a home as soon as possible, thus you see that by the time the wise men showed up they were no longer in the cave.
3) Mary and Joseph didn't stay in Bethlehem all that long, if you notice in Matthew 2:12 you see that because of a warning Mary and Joseph went back to "their country by another route." It was after that when we find Mary Joseph and Jesus escaping to Egypt.
There is no problem here.
And about the Pass Over meal problem, in post #326 I had said this:
I'm not sure of the problem here, would you mind pinpointing it...chapter and verse? Just in case the problem is what I think it may be, here's this; remember the Feast of Unleavened Bread was more then one day, and that the Jews, who were turning Jesus over to the Romans in John 18:28, were possibly running late in their partaking of the Passover meal. But I understand that I may not be understanding the problem.

Now, as for The Book of Mark saying that there were no angels, you will have to show me the verse that says "there were no angels". However I do see where Mark mentions a young man dressed in white, but my question is what do you suppose angels look? Could they look like young men dressed in white? They appear that way in every other angelophany in the Bible...or at least the ones I remember.

Okay, now I'm going to get back to your post #323 and look at the last words of Christ problem.

Matthew and Mark say Jesus' last words were "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Luke says it was "Father in your hands I commit my spirit." and John says it was "It is finished"
Nowhere in Matthew or Mark does it say that Jesus' last words were "My God, why have you forsaken me?" In Matthew 27:50 it says:
"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit"
And Mark 15:37 says:
"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last."
Here's a couple of questions to defuse the problem
1) What did Jesus cry out?
2) How did Jesus give up his spirit?
Let's go to John and see what Jesus cried out:
In John 19:28-29 we see Jesus saying he is thirsty, the people rush and get him wine vinegar as they did in Matthew and Mark. Now where Matthew and Mark say that Jesus cried out John 19:30 tells us what it was that he cried out:
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said , 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
When Jesus cried out he said "it is finished" which is interesting because in the Greek it's a term that means "paid in full".
Do you wonder what was paid in full?
Now this isn't the last words of Christ on the cross. Notice that in Matthew and John it says that Jesus "gave up his spirit? Well Luke chapter 23:46 shows how he did it:
Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."
The way Jesus gave up his spirit was to hand it over to God the Father.

There, John and Luke answer the problem you had with, what you thought, was, the last words of Jesus contradiction.

And as for the ressurection, and the story changing as time went by. Lets see, Mark was first. He said that all the disciples of Jesus ran They dont go to Galilee to meet Christ. There are no angels, or burial shrouds, or any of that stuff mentioned. And the person that announces the ressurection is nothing but a man dressed in white. Then comes Matthew, he says the angels announce Jesus' ressurection. And here, instead of running away, the women, including Mary, enter the tomb then run and tell the disciples. In Matthews account Jesus talks to them, and tells them he will always be with them among other things. Next was Luke, who adds more to the story. After the women discover the empty tomb they go tell the disiples, and then Peter proceeds to go to the tomb to check it out. He finds a burial shroud. Then he gives the account of Jesus traveling around and meeting disiples and even sharing meals with them, and dissapearing when they recognize him. Luke is also the only one to mention Christs rise into Heaven. Then there is John, who writes his Gospel nearly 100 years after Christs death. John wrote a wholy different account by the looks of it. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, Last Supper was the day before Passover, the crusifixion on the day of. All different from the other three. And in John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, alone and finds it empty. She thinks the body was stolen. Then she comes back with Peter, to find two angels, who turn into Jesus..

And id God was the inspiration for these writings, why would he change the story so much, making it more and more miraculous as time went on?
Most of these problems I already covered in my resurrection post, but I would like to say, just because Luke was the only one to mention that Jesus ascended up into heaven, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't ascend up into heaven.
And what makes you think that John was written 100 years after Christ's death? Jesus died in 30 A.D. the Book of John was written, some say 85-90 A.D. Some say it was written before 70 A.D. (that's what I think) but let's say it was 90 A.D.; that means John would have written it only 60 years after Christ's death.

Nowhere in Matthew or Mark does it say that Jesus' last words were "My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:46
"Eloi eloi lama sabachthani" or, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me.

Mark 15:34 states the same thing.

That is what he said upon his ninth hour on the cross, according to Mark and Matthew.

How can you miss something like this?


In Matthew 27:50 it says:
"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit"
And Mark 15:37 says:
"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last."
Here's a couple of questions to defuse the problem
1) What did Jesus cry out?
2) How did Jesus give up his spirit?
Let's go to John and see what Jesus cried out:
In John 19:28-29 we see Jesus saying he is thirsty, the people rush and get him wine vinegar as they did in Matthew and Mark. Now where Matthew and Mark say that Jesus cried out John 19:30 tells us what it was that he cried out:
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said , 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
When Jesus cried out he said "it is finished" which is interesting because in the Greek it's a term that means "paid in full".
Do you wonder what was paid in full?
Now this isn't the last words of Christ on the cross. Notice that in Matthew and John it says that Jesus "gave up his spirit? Well Luke chapter 23:46 shows how he did it:
Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."
The way Jesus gave up his spirit was to hand it over to God the Father.

There, John and Luke answer the problem you had with, what you thought, was, the last words of Jesus contradiction.

And all youve done here is taken all 4 accounts and mashed them together. Sure any one account could be true, but then, in order to make them all true, you explain it away by fitting them together. Do you think Mark wrote his account, and then all those years later expected John to write his account, and have them put together?

Most of these problems I already covered in my resurrection post, but I would like to say, just because Luke was the only one to mention that Jesus ascended up into heaven, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't ascend up into heaven.
And what makes you think that John was written 100 years after Christ's death? Jesus died in 30 A.D. the Book of John was written, some say 85-90 A.D. Some say it was written before 70 A.D. (that's what I think) but let's say it was 90 A.D.; that means John would have written it only 60 years after Christ's death.

My biggest point in this is that the stories get more miraculous as time goes on. Why wouldnt Mark mention Jesus ascending into Heaven, or that there were angels present. That seems like some pretty important information to ommit dont you think? But, again, the story get more and more miraculous as the story gets re-written.

Substitute builder
What I meant by foundation, is the fact that Jesus is the son of God, and the saviour of mankind. Do you deny that the early church shed Mary in an unfavorable light?
The early church shed Mary in an unfavorable light? The first century church called Mary "the Apostle to the Apostles." What unfavorable light are you talking about?

Then there is the whole story that they were possibly lovers. Also, Jesus wanted her to take over for him, and they possibly concieved a child. If that were the case, Jesus was a mere mortal.
I can't do much about stories, but what first century text do you have that supports your view?

Also there is mention of Jesus travels to the far east, all those missing years, and how eastern religions may have influinced him.
There is mention, where, of Jesus travels to the far east? There are a lot of stories about Jesus, some say that as a child he would hurt or kill his friends in a fit of anger and then heal them or bring them back from the dead. As I said; I can't do much about stories.

All of that stuff was burried by the church, and anyone who mentioned it was deemed a heritic.
It's a claim, but what is the supporting facts?

As for the whole life on other planets point, im a little amazed that this wouldnt have any bearing on your understanding of the universe and God. If your faith is that strong, I commend you. And if the questions I presented about that point dont make you wonder a little, then Idont know what else I can say about it.
I don't know why it's so amazing, there is nothing about the discovery of life outside this earth that would contradict the Bible or Christian teaching. Matter of fact the Bible already speaks of life other then that of life on planet earth...the angels, demons, and other beings (those found in Revelation)
More later

It's a claim, but what is the supporting facts?Ha ha ha!!

I'm guessing the supreme irony of this question eludes you. :)

Sedan, are you suggesting that there are absolutely no facts supporting the Bible?

Sedan, are you suggesting that there are absolutely no facts supporting the Bible?No.

We know, for example, that there was indeed a King David. But I would say that the version of events given in the New Testament is supported only by the version of events given in the New Testament. To my way of thinking this amounts to making a claim, hence the irony.

Matthew 27:46
"Eloi eloi lama sabachthani" or, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me.

Mark 15:34 states the same thing.

That is what he said upon his ninth hour on the cross, according to Mark and Matthew.

How can you miss something like this?
Miss what? Matthew and Mark both claim that Jesus cried out after he said, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" I just went to the other Gospels to discover what he had cried out, because they recorded Jesus very last words where Matthew and Mark merely state that he cried out...they just don't say what.

And all youve done here is taken all 4 accounts and mashed them together. Sure any one account could be true, but then, in order to make them all true, you explain it away by fitting them together.
"Taken all four accounts and mashed them together?" Isn't that the point? You said that they contradict each other, and I demonstrated that they don't contradict each other, but that they actually compliment each other.

Do you think Mark wrote his account, and then all those years later expected John to write his account, and have them put together?
I don't know what Mark expected but, the problem, as you said in your post #351, is whether God is the "inspiration", so the question is did God expect them to be put together?

No.

We know, for example, that there was indeed a King David. But I would say that the version of events given in the New Testament is supported only by the version of events given in the New Testament. To my way of thinking this amounts to making a claim, hence the irony.

I'm glad you said "no" too often I've heard people say that there are no facts supporting the Bible, but the problem is to find facts outside the New Testament that would support the New Testament. As soon as I get done with Phyrex's post, that I was working on, I'll see if I can dig up a couple.

I'm glad you said "no" too often I've heard people say that there are no facts supporting the Bible, but the problem is to find facts outside the New Testament that would support the New Testament. As soon as I get done with Phyrex's post, that I was working on, I'll see if I can dig up a couple.
You assert that we know there was a "King David." That is not true. There exists an incription of a "David" (not an uncommon name), of unknown date. This has been latched onto rather desperately by people like you, but it tells us nothing.

Actually Satan believes that Christ is the Son of God, and the savior of mankind, he still is God's enemy. Believing is a start, the next step is to make accept his death as payment for your sins, and accept him as Lord of your life. Romans says that if you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.

Of course Satan believes, the reason Satan is in hell is because him and 1/3 of the other angels in Heaven decided to wage war on God, and lost. Your point here is invalid.
The point was that becoming a Christian is not just having belief, it's also about accepting Christ as Lord. My point still stands.

As for the believeing part, can anyone who confesses that Jesus is the messiah, and pledges his heart to Jesus be saved? Anyone? Hitler, Ted Bundy, Nero, any of those guys? What would happen if they confessed, and truly believed?[
Yes. Anyone can accept Jesus as Lord of their life and find full forgiveness for their sins. All other religions are about being good enough, Christianity is about admitting to not being good enough and accepting the Gift of God. Hitler, Bundy, Nero, and any of those guys are evil men, but we are not saved by what we do, we are saved by what Jesus did, so all people everywhere are invited to receive Christ.

The problem is that if you only believe Jesus was a real man, with good teachings you have a Jesus that is only a man, this is different Jesus then the Jesus that died for our sins.
Speaking of the teachings of Jesus...Jesus taught that he was the way the truth and the life, and that no one can come to God accept through him.

So says Christianity.
Yes.

You assert that we know there was a "King David." That is not true. There exists an incription of a "David" (not an uncommon name), of unknown date. This has been latched onto rather desperately by people like you, but it tells us nothing.

It may tell you nothing, but let archaeologist and historians speak for themselves.

It may tell you nothing, but let archaeologist and historians speak for themselves.
What archaeologists and historians?

There is nothing to say he existed or didn't exist except the myths of the OT, written centuries later.

I have to say that this is a problem with scholarship that impinges on the Bible: there are too many charlatans who make a living pretending to be "scholars" for Christian consumption.

The point was that becoming a Christian is not just having belief, it's also about accepting Christ as Lord. My point still stands.

Yes, we have submission/dominance instincts, and the Christianity meme makes use of them.


All other religions are about being good enough, Christianity is about admitting to not being good enough and accepting the Gift of God. Hitler, Bundy, Nero, and any of those guys are evil men, but we are not saved by what we do, we are saved by what Jesus did, so all people everywhere are invited to receive Christ.


Good people who are not Christians go to Hell while bad people who are Christians go to Heaven.

You misrepresent other religion's teachings on this. Generally, the non-Semitic religions of the world are not about judgment but about personal consequences and responsibility--not laying it off onto some ancient mythical sacrifice.

I don't really mind Hitler, et. al. going to Heaven. If there is an all-powerful, omnibeneficient deity, then we all get to heaven somehow or sometime. It's the good people who go to Hell just because they aren't Christians, when Christianity is intellectually so flimsy and dishonest, that I don't like.

By the way, Nero doesn't really belong in your "evil men" list. Tacitus didn't like him and his history tears at him, but, as Roman Emperors went, he was well intentioned if ineffective. Better on your list would be "Caligula" or Commodus or Dominitian or Constantine.

By the way, Nero doesn't really belong in your "evil men" list. Tacitus didn't like him and his history tears at him, but, as Roman Emperors went, he was well intentioned if ineffective. Better on your list would be "Caligula" or Commodus or Dominitian or Constantine.

Ha, yeah Caligula was the one I was really looking for. Ill post some responses later on, im too tired right now.

I thought the gospels weren't even written until a couple of hundred years after said events were to have taken place? If so, they weren't written by the actual apostles Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They would have been written by diciples. Also the chances of them being educated enough to understand the written word would be limited wouldn't it?

I thought the gospels weren't even written until a couple of hundred years after said events were to have taken place? If so, they weren't written by the actual apostles Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They would have been written by diciples. Also the chances of them being educated enough to understand the written word would be limited wouldn't it?

Mark wrote the first one, somewhere around year 60. John wrote his somewhere between year 90-100. Luke and Matthew wrote theirs in between.

I thought the gospels weren't even written until a couple of hundred years after said events were to have taken place? If so, they weren't written by the actual apostles Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They would have been written by diciples. Also the chances of them being educated enough to understand the written word would be limited wouldn't it?
Most scholars tend to put the writing of Mark as first, since Matthew and Luke take passages from it, and add stuff they either invented or got from other sources (my view is that Luke had other sources and Matthew was inventive).

This is dated from around 80 to 100 CE. John had to have come later, maybe well into the second century, and derives from a similar but separate tradition. By the time John was written Christianity was losing its cultic, primitive aspects and becoming a real religion needing philosophical foundation. Hence crude narrative found in the Synoptics is replaced with John's elevated style and neo-Platonic/Stoic (it seems to be a mix of the two) philosophy.

There is no question in my mind these could not have been written by eyewitnesses. Narration of things like Jesus' private prayer is the "novelist's perspective," not one of an eyewitness.

Mark wrote the first one, somewhere around year 60. John wrote his somewhere between year 90-100. Luke and Matthew wrote theirs in between.
I think you are a bit too early, probably because when scholars are trying to date things, they tend to assign the "earliest possible date," and this gets picked up in the literature as the actual date.

If you presume, as do most scholars, that Mark derives from earlier writings ("Quelle") or from compilations of "sayings of Jesus" (actually these sayings were common aphorisms of the neoPlatonic world--another bit of evidence that the authors were Greek and not Palestinian), then a later date is more likely.

This is because the earliest possible date for any "Quelle" or similar writing is about 60, so we need some time for it to take shape and be disseminated before Mark gets written.

Since the earliest full manuscripts date from three centuries later, there is no hard evidence that they were even written in the first century--just educated guesswork--that may be prejudiced by common assumptions about Christianity. (A few earlier and extremely tiny fragments proves nothing, since they could have been from some other now lost document that had the same material).

Im not a big believer in fate, and if God has a plan, why doesnt he simply plan for everyone to be a Christian?
Where would that put those who hate God, who want no part of Christianity? Would you say that God should erase who they are and who they want to be so that they will accept His gift?

He could put Satan out of a job, and make the world a great place.
Satan is not the only problem this world has.

But if God does have a plan, why do we have free will to do what we want, not to follow Christ if we so choose? Or do we not have free will, and everything that we do is simply Gods plan?
The fact that God has a plan and knows how everyone chooses, does not take away our free will, but add to that we don't have absolute free will.

Almost all religions teach basically the same thing. Allah will make you spiritually alive as well when you die, so will Buddah, and the Hindu Gods, and Jesus, if you follow their teachings of course.
Would you give me quotes from the Islam, Buddhist, and Hindu holy scriptures that teach us that we will be spiritually alive as soon as we accept their Ideas?
By the way, in what way in what way are all religions teaching basically the same thing?

And I suppose this stems from eating the forbbidien fruit in the Garden of Eden right. Every person in born into sin because of what Eve did?
Because of what Adam and Eve did, yes. Adam and Eve represented mankind, they were told what would happen if they disobeyed God, they failed, all of creation fell, and men received their sin nature. Now we have a new representative, (Jesus) who did not fail-all who seek him find him, all who find him are saved.
Phyrex, and anyone else reading this...try it out, go in prayer to God, ask about Jesus, then see what happens.

Let me ask you this, how old do you believe the Earth to be?
I have no idea how old the Earth is- the Bible doesn't say. Genesis 1:1 simply says:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
So you have the Bible telling us that God is the creator of Time, Space, and Matter. How long that took I don't know, the Bible doesn't say it could have been four hundred billion years plus, I just don't know. Now, from there, (verse 2 and on) the focus is on making the earth habitable and the creation of Life on the earth. So the question should probably be how many years has it been since God first started the creation of life on earth...and that I still don't know, or at least I can't be to accurate. Which brings the next question, the one you probably intended, and that is: How long did God take in creating life on this earth. My answer: seven days. Of course I'm can't be dead certain that a day was exactly a 24 hour cycle, it could have been a 36 hour cycle or more, or less. I can't say that the rotation of the earth was as fast then as it is today. Just like light, I don't know that the speed of light has always been the same.
However, having said that, let me add; I don't believe in what is called the day age theory, where one day is millions of years. Some Christians do...some respectable Christian scientists do, some don't.

Ok, well that was fun, and it took like over an hour and a half because I had to look a lot of that stuff up in the good book itself, but hey. Anything to make a point. Im not trying to completely diss your beliefs here Stark, I dont look down on anyone for their religious beliefs, ans long as they arent completely radical (in a bad way). If you belive that Jesus is your savior so be it, Im just trying to understand, and I dont claim to know the truth.
That's the thing about the exchange of ideas...sometimes we have to "diss" a belief if it contradicts your own...sometimes we have to completely "diss" a belief. Now it's the dissing of the person that is troubling, and I can't say that I'm not guilty of it, but I try to hold on to the ideal that one should be egalitarian when it comes to people, but exclusivistic when it comes to ideas. So, what I’m saying is diss away.

Note to Phyrex:

The Buddha taught that if you are to become "spiritually alive," you must do it while you are alive, not after you are dead.

Note to Phyrex:

The Buddha taught that if you are to become "spiritually alive," you must do it while you are alive, not after you are dead.

Thislin, do you know if it's true that The Buddha taught this?

The Buddha taught that we should always look for the good in all relgions and understand that it is not our place to attack them. That I am less than a good Buddhist in this respect should be obvious. The teaching is not exactly that all religions are "true," but that "truth," to a finite being, is an illusion.
Is it true that, “truth to a finite being is an illusion,” or is that also an illusion. Is your existence an illusion, or is it really true that you exist?

It is one of many passages that reflect the Mithraic origin of Christian thinking, since all of the "mystery cults" taught that the only way to salvation was through their betrayed/killed/ressurrected demiurge.
Yeah, I’ve been hit with the Mithra and other mystery cult / Christian similarity theory before, and it’s amazing to actually compare them. One of those similarities that someone his me with is that Jesus and Mithra were both born from a virgin and in a cave. In actuality Mithra was born out of a rock. Now, as I’ve said before, the rock may have been next to a cave, and was most probably a virgin, so there is a certain degree of similarity.
Then there is the resurrection similarities between Jesus and Osiris. I’ve been told that accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and osiris’ resurrection are the same. Come to find out Osiris is murdered by his brother Seth, and cut into fourteen pieces. Isis, Osiris’ wife finds him, sews him back up, and he spends his time wandering around not really dead, but not really alive.
It’s interesting that every claimed similarity that someone has told me about that I’ve looked into, turns out to be nothing like the story of Jesus.

There are many passages that reflect early Christian intolerance. This is only one of them.
I’m ready to look up some more.

As I said, one looks at religion benignly, without making true/false judgments. I fear you are so imbued with the Western tradition that we can know "truth" that you don't realize how what seems to us to be contradiction can really be only limits to our perception.
It’s interesting how many people claim that we can’t know truth, but live their lives, thinking, speaking, and moving, as if they know the truth. For instance, Thislin, you have spent a good bit of time in this thread telling me the “truth”, I’m fine with that, but you certainly believe in truth.

In the old story about the blind men feeling the elephant, the one who reports on the leg must think the one who reports on the tail is a liar, and vice-versa--but it is only their limits that prevent their seeing the entire picture.
Yet the author of the story knows there is the elephant, that there are blind men, and that they are confused as to the truth. Just as the real author of all life knows the truth about what is and where we are confused.

Thislin, do you know if it's true that The Buddha taught this?
You are getting trivial. What the Buddha actually taught is of course not knowable, but it is reasonable to think this, since the teaching is found from the earliest Buddhist source on.

Buddhism in its classical form is about finding "Enlightenment," a state wherein the illusions of the world become clear and we really understand what it is all about.

This state, it is taught, is achieved through compassion, moral behavior, study, and meditation.

Whether "Enlightenment" is a real state achieved by real people is not too important to me. I see it, even if it is not "real," as a worthy objective.

Is it true that, “truth to a finite being is an illusion,” or is that also an illusion. Is your existence an illusion, or is it really true that you exist?

The self-referential contradiction is easily dismissed by just saying that, except for this fact, it is a fact that truth to a finite being is an illusion. That is not a substantive approach--in fact is is simply petty.

Yeah, I’ve been hit with the Mithra and other mystery cult / Christian similarity theory before, and it’s amazing to actually compare them. One of those similarities that someone his me with is that Jesus and Mithra were both born from a virgin and in a cave. In actuality Mithra was born out of a rock. Now, as I’ve said before, the rock may have been next to a cave, and was most probably a virgin, so there is a certain degree of similarity.

What you talk about are superficialities that I have not mentioned. They are interesting, but one can argue whether they came from Mithraism or vice-verse, and no one can know. For example, I don't think there is any hint in really early Christianity, nor in the Gospels, that Mary was necessarily a virgin. This idea arrived quite a bit later, although probably from Mithraism.

The important similarity is the betrayal (the Judas story is forced--they put it in there to follow the pattern, but Jesus could have been arrested any time without the need for such a "betrayal"). Similarly, the murder and death and resurrection are a common and important set of similarities (and quite contrary to Messianic ideas current in Judaism). Finally, the Mass--the Last Supper--the ritual of gaining salvation through a meal where the symbolic blood and body of the sacrificial victim, with ensuing atonement, is entirely Greek mystery religion.
Then there is the resurrection similarities between Jesus and Osiris. I’ve been told that accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and Osiris's’ resurrection are the same. Come to find out Osiris is murdered by his brother Seth, and cut into fourteen pieces. Isis, Osiris’ wife finds him, sews him back up, and he spends his time wandering around not really dead, but not really alive.
You dwell on differences. The story you have is that that came from Egypt; we don't really know the story as it was taken up in Hellenism. The theme there was that Osiris' blood provides the sole route for the soul into the paradise parts of the underworld. The basic thrust is the same--betrayal (Judas or Horus), unjust death, resurrection (Isis recovering all the body parts) and salvation offered solely through the cult practice.
It’s interesting that every claimed similarity that someone has told me about that I’ve looked into, turns out to be nothing like the story of Jesus.
You seem to be good at concluding what you want to conclude, a bit in spite of the actual facts.
It’s interesting how many people claim that we can’t know truth, but live their lives, thinking, speaking, and moving, as if they know the truth. For instance, Thislin, you have spent a good bit of time in this thread telling me the “truth”, I’m fine with that, but you certainly believe in truth.
The problem is because of the language--I would distinguish between things we are reasonably persuaded describe reality and your claim the Christianity represents an absolute description of reality. English uses the word "truth" for both of these shades of meaning.

A "scientific" approach to things realizes that no measurement is absolutely exact, no theory will ever reach the status of being proven, and that no such thing as proven fact can exist. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't make progress. The claim by religions that they have "Truth" (revealed to them via supernatural means) must be rejected out of hand, since any such revelation will itself be subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion.

Yet the author of the story knows there is the elephant, that there are blind men, and that they are confused as to the truth. Just as the real author of all life knows the truth about what is and where we are confused.

What the "author of all life" may or may not know is not something you are qualified to tell us, nor anyone else.

I must say that there are MANY similarities between Christianity and the early mystery cults, those worshiping Mithras and Dionysis and Osiris for example, and the main difference is that Christianity was marketed from the beginning to everyone. The mystery cults were quite exclusive (in Mithraism, for example, members had to be initiated to be considered members of the religion, and only the initiated could learn the secrets and rituals) and certainly did not try to swell their ranks by converting people in the style of Christianity. The early Christians saw the appeal of a powerful, worldwide religion, a church that could have power without being sanctioned by monarchies or governments.

That was the most important thing I had to say, so now I'll talk about the similarities. This is all from Wikipedia, since I don't feel like looking up other, possibly more credible, sources at the moment.

Some commentators surmise that the Mithraists worshipped Mithras as the mediator between Man and the supreme God of the upper and nether world. Other commentators, inspired by James Frazer's theories, have additionally labeled Mithras as a mystery religion with a life-death-rebirth deity, comparable to Isis, the resurrected Jesus, or the Persephone/Demeter, the cult of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Several stories exist concerning the birth of Mithras. Some stories say that he sprang from a living rock or a tree.[1] One sculpture found on Hadrian's Wall depicts Mithras hatching from a "Cosmic Egg."[1] Another story claims that he was born of a virgin on December 25. This date was celebrated as the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.[2] Some depictions of his birth show shepherds in attendance, while others show only two torchbearers.[3] (Emphasis mine).

Well, these explanations on Wikipedia did not prove to be sufficient for me, so I've found this link: Mithraism (http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html)

Roman Mithras was perhaps the greatest rival to early Christianity for many reasons. As well as being a popular pagan religion practised by the Roman Army, Mithraism had many similarities to Christianity. Mithras was born of a virgin, remained celibate, his worship involving baptism, the partaking of bread marked with a cross and wine as sacrificial blood, held Sundays sacred and Mithras was born on 25th of December. Mithraist called themselves 'brother' and were led by a priest called 'father' (Pater). The symbol of the father were a staff, a hooked sword, a ring and hat.

These similarities frightened the early Christian leaders - that almost 500 years before arrival of Christ all of the Christian mysteries were already known. To combat this, Christian witters said that the Devil knew of the coming of Christ in advance and had imitated them before they existed in order to denigrate them. As Christianity gained strength and became the formal religion of the Roman Empire, the 'Cult of Mithras' was one of the first pagan cults to come under attack in the fifth century; Temples of Mithras, like most other pagan Temples, were destroyed and Churches build on them.

A much more satisfying explanation.

By your definitions of tolerance and open mindedness, you are neither. But I think your definitions are not correct so you could be both tolerant and open minded.

Perhaps you could try your hand at offering a definition.
Okay, how about:
Tolerance: Allowing one the freedom to practice what they believe is true.

Open mindedness for the politically correct: Everything is right, everything is true, everything is wonderful, everything is beautiful in its own way. (except for conservatism)

My definition of open mindedness: Allowing others to voice their beliefs, to try their beliefs in the arena of ideas.(even for the conservative.)

I am not a Christian; I don't believe it. That does not mean I think it is "false." That much of Christianity seems a lie to me cannot be denied, but, then, maybe we are feeling different parts of the elephant.
What’s the greatest lie in Christianity?

There is another analogy the Buddha and many others have used, that of crossing a mountain. There may be only one path, but there probably are many, and some may seem to lead in entirely the wrong direction for long periods of time.
Jesus didn’t seem to think that way, he said in John 3:16-18
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The Buddha's discovery was a way, but he does not say his is the only way. Regardless, we are each individually responsible only for ourselves; out of compassion we may try to help others, but in the end each must take whatever path they think is right for them.
What other way did Buddha believe that one could reach Nirvana apart from the way that he taught?

One time I tried to make a chart of the events narrated in the four resurrection stories. Try it--it is not possible. The Synoptics differ in all sorts of details, and the story in John is completely different.

The same thing applies to the Nativity stories found in Luke and in Matthew. They are wildly discordant. Any objective reader can see this at a glance.

It is true that with enough imagination and determination, scenarios can be invented to "harmonize" almost anything. Belief based on such rationalization is foolish and even delusional.

This quote is from page 22, and now that I’ve posted the resurrection harmonization post, I’d like you to show where the contradictions are.

This quote is from page 22, and now that I’ve posted the resurrection harmonization post, I’d like you to show where the contradictions are.
Just read the two narratives. They are not the same stories at all--only the names are the same. In one the Holy Family goes off into Egypt because of Herod, in the other they are shortly in Jerusalem.

I just can't see how anyone can actually read these and not see what is so obvious.

I must say that there are MANY similarities between Christianity and the early mystery cults, those worshiping Mithras and Dionysis and Osiris for example, and the main difference is that Christianity was marketed from the beginning to everyone. The mystery cults were quite exclusive (in Mithraism, for example, members had to be initiated to be considered members of the religion, and only the initiated could learn the secrets and rituals) and certainly did not try to swell their ranks by converting people in the style of Christianity. The early Christians saw the appeal of a powerful, worldwide religion, a church that could have power without being sanctioned by monarchies or governments.

That was the most important thing I had to say, so now I'll talk about the similarities. This is all from Wikipedia, since I don't feel like looking up other, possibly more credible, sources at the moment.



(Emphasis mine).

Well, these explanations on Wikipedia did not prove to be sufficient for me, so I've found this link: Mithraism (http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html)



A much more satisfying explanation.
To combat this, Christian witters said that the Devil knew of the coming of Christ in advance and had imitated them before they existed in order to denigrate them.
--From the site you quote. You say you find this a "satisfying explanation?" I am puzzled.