I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote


thank you my friend !

As long as I've been involved in education, the reporting of alleged abuse has been a fixture in yearly orientations. Poll the teachers in any school or college in this country, and they all know by now that if you see or hear something you report it. If you report it, it's your boss's responsibility to figure out the truth. If you don't report it, you are responsible for whatever is discovered later. Failure to report is a criminal offense in the states I've worked in.

Naturally it's understandable for someone who doesn't work in education to see this as a gray area or a judgement call. If you'd had to sit through teacher/coach orientations every year, I expect you'd be less likely to assume that a school employee wouldn't/shouldn't have known what to do.

>> ^Yogi:

I guess I don't understand the outrage against Joe if he fucked up and didn't report that someone said one of his coaches was abusing children. I get that all it takes for evil to persist is for good man to go silent and all the rest of it. However I'd like someone who has always acted perfectly in a leadership role to step forward and say Joe fucked up. He could've very well fucked up...but I'm confused as to why everyone believes this idea that he should've known this was all THAT bad and he should be reporting it. It seems to me that the people that actually witnessed this situation are to blame and not the head guy just because he's the head guy.

Ok try not to flame me too hard because I could have this absolutely backwards. Buuuut Joe knew what exactly about this situation? That someone saw a child being abused? Did he know about the full on raping?

I guess I don't understand the outrage against Joe if he fucked up and didn't report that someone said one of his coaches was abusing children. I get that all it takes for evil to persist is for good man to go silent and all the rest of it. However I'd like someone who has always acted perfectly in a leadership role to step forward and say Joe fucked up. He could've very well fucked up...but I'm confused as to why everyone believes this idea that he should've known this was all THAT bad and he should be reporting it. It seems to me that the people that actually witnessed this situation are to blame and not the head guy just because he's the head guy.

I could have that completely wrong because I'm not positive about the facts and I don't think anyone knows what Joe knew. I'd just like to remind everyone that this is an 84 year old, perhaps sorta brain addled man and he's being blamed for not reporting something everyone else could've reported. I'm not sure I completely understand the situation.

As @Phreezdryd mentioned, the eleventh Doctor used psychic paper in "The Eleventh Hour." Apart from that, he used it in the episodes "The Vampires of Venice," "The Hungry Earth," "Vincent and the Doctor," "The Lodger," "A Christmas Carol," "The Rebel Flesh," "A Good Man Goes to War," and finally, "Night Terrors". I don't think that's much less often than his predecessors.

>> ^brycewi19:

On another note, I just realized that the 11th Doctor doesn't use the psychic paper any more.
What gives?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It was nice of DFT to sit in the empty theater you rented, watching your student-caliber film projected off a laptop, but that doesn't entitle him to be such a sanctimonious asshole.

I'm glad you decided to make it personal. Thanks for the personal attacks.
The truth is of course that you wanted to score that "student-caliber film". But I listened to your scoring samples. They were okay, but not great. So I passed. This must've set you right the hell off, because ever since you've been a bit of a prick to me. No hard feelings, DFT. Be a smart guy right now and drop it. I'm sure you don't want to make this any more personal than you already have. I can do far worse.

You talk about personal attacks--then threaten dft?
You certainly have learned self awareness.
"Don't make this personal--or I'll personally come after you."
Here's a little advice--I know you won't take advice from a lowly person such as myself, but I'll try anyway--back away from the computer.
Give it a couple of days--come back and apologize to @DerHasisttot. Leave dft and everyone else alone. I guarantee if you follow this advice you will benefit.
We disagree on many things, but I enjoy your videos and many things you say make me think about my own preconceptions. I like that you are here.
You like it here; don't trash it.


This is the bias I'm talking about. Did you read his quoted comment with rose colored glasses? And where's the threat? I want him to stop making personal attacks against me over my film. He's an artist and should know better. Just because you side with him ideologically doesn't mean he's right.

I could say some really mean things, but I've held back. Because although our friendship is irreparable, I still think he's a genuine guy personally. A good man generally. Sweet in person. But we're both letting our ideological differences make us enemies online. And that's maybe how it should be.

I didn't agree with his political position, but there's no doubt that Canada lost a good man.

@ZappaDanMan @MilkmanDan

Dad's Mormon and Mom's Southern Baptist--talk about a screwy mix. When I was in Sunday School (raised as a Mormon) the teacher told us the story of the loaves and fishes. I got it! People said they had no food so a very good man gave everything he had to them all--his unselfishness and generosity inspired them all to give up the food they were holding out for themselves--and all were fed. What a beautiful and inspiring story--then the teacher screwed it all up by saying that a "miracle" occurred and more food magically appeared. Makes for a much worse story. Instead of giving of himself just magically making food seems so trite (not to mention he could always just give everyone all the food they need. Poof! No more starvation).

I got a bible and read it cover to cover, twice. I wanted to know what it said--not memorize chapter and verse. All myths and verbal history of a primitive people (I was 11 years old).

Anyway, I just wanted to put in my two cents. Later.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I guess my issue with telling people they should try everything in life is that there is the potential for people do so with no other reason than because someone told them they should or they are "missing out". I agree it's their choice to do so, but it's going to happen in an irresponsible way when anything they try is illegal, unsafe, or socially unaccepted whether it be drug or activity.
In my opinion it's why we end up with a lot of adults who are unable to cope with life sober, they get into "something" in their teens and learn to function in society while going on their highs and lows along with all the stuff everyone else has to learn to cope with. They just simply never learn to balance themselves. Now if we tell people who've got a relatively stable life with the ability to put things in perspective, they COULD experiment with drugs or other activities.....presumably they would have people who could tell them they are fucking their life up over a powder, pill, or plant.
My experience so far with older adults who smoke weed and don't really hide it is that they can deal with it, they do it in the privacy of their own home and they don't spend their time trying to talk people into joining them or convincing others. However if their kids start using, they usually start early and in secret and I haven't met one yet that didn't constantly talk about smoking: when they last did, when they will next do it, how much, how you should join them, how one kind strain is better, etc, etc. They may not abuse it, but they sure sound like they would if they could keep enough money in their pockets to do so.
So.......as long as it's "for the experience of it" very infrequently and not because they never learned to function without it. Personally I don't drink, smoke, use drugs, etc....and I don't really care if other people do (well except for smoking, can't stand when people smoke near me or smell like an ashtray) but you never know when people are moderate and balanced in their usage of most things.
I mean honestly unless a kid has someone older showing them quantities and how to cope......it's basically like encouraging them to skydive when they can't afford the equipment and training to actually walk away unharmed. People are pretty fucking stupid when they want to "be cool" and fit in.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^mxxcon:
i guess after smoking that shit every time they kept finding their windows broken and couldn't figure out how it happened so they decided to record their "Adventures"
On a serious note, they are fucking idiots for taking these drugs
and equally fucking idiots for posting it on the internet.
This is as good EIA as
any.

I'm sorry, but i have to take this up. You are not necessarily an idiot for trying a drug. It's all a matter of opinion, but mine is that you're pretty closeted if you don't ever try a drug - or rather if you pour scorn on someone and label them as an idiot for trying one. If you don't want to try them, fine. You've got say 85 years on this earth, give or take, and i recommend you try and find any kind of meaning, experience everything you can, try everything before you're asked to leave because what the hell is the point in being alive if you don't do anything? We didn't get to be the top of the food chain by not experimenting with stuff.
This guy approached a drug which plays with what you percieve as reality. He went about it in a stupid way. He is not stupid for trying the drug.
I ask only one thing of people in relation to their opinions on drugs - express your desire not to take them, express your reasons why you don't want to take them, but for goodness sake don't judge something you haven't tried.



But that's all good man - you expressed your desire not to try it, you've expressed why, but you didn't judge any drug which you haven't tried.

Counter to your experience, i knew a guy who started smoking weed at 14, 15 ish. His mum told him - fine, do it in the house where i can make sure you're ok. So he did with his close friends, and they had a great time, were grateful for the ability to do it in a warm comfortable place, and were delivered muffins and cakes from time to time because his mum was a great cook and gave her a chance to make sure everything was fine. They didn't talk about it all the time, they didn't overdo it, and he's a fireman now. Oh, and we eventually found out that his mum smoked it too. Their house was great, a proper home, proper family.

I suffered hard with depression in the past, and if i hadn't tried weed when i was 17, perhaps i might not be around today, you know? It took the horrible bottomless pit away from under me and showed me that perhaps life isn't all misery, it was no permanent cure but it showed me that i didn't always have to feel down. And that didn't lead to further use, because it was enough to feel good for the rest of the day, my one good day in a thousand bad ones.

I think we simply disagree philosophically, or something. I think people should - within the realms of reason - try things for the hell of it. I don't think drugs are irresponsible merely by dint of being illegal. I think people should question what the government tells us we can put in our bodies. Because i think if people did put some weed in their bodies regularly, they might just realise how supercilious we are when we take material wealth and work to be of utmost important to us. That might be dangerous for the government, because people might decide not to spend the majority if their lives doing something they despise, and actually start reaching out, trying for something better - taking a chance.

Remember, it's all very easy for someone to tell you the bad sides of things, because they're much publicised and fear mongering is a cinch. Governments want bad drug rumours to be spread, and they like bad emotional baggage to be attached to the word "drugs". Numerous propaganda attempts in the past surely show us that they've got some agenda. And it'd be very easy for people to say "LOL, if people stopped 'doing what they despise', the world would collapse and we'd have no food, no electricity, etc. etc!" But it ain't necessarily so. People do it already. There's alternatives, in my opinion better alternatives, but for a world like that we might all NEED to reach the higher level of relaxedness associated with weed

And finally - how's amsterdam doing? Because last i heard it's a fking great place to live. Better than where i live even if it's half as good as the last time i heard, and we prohibit drugs.

...you are just confusing the issue with all those facts!

Blasphemer!

>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.
This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.

no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.
as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.
your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.
only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.
well.you go have fun with that.

"Fuck scarred" good man.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.
This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.


no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.

as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.

your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.

only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.

well.you go have fun with that.

There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.

This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.

I'm good, man. Living/working in NYC. How's everything on your end?