Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255351 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
Maybe God isn't real, hold up, God is Jesus, and Jesus is God.
So we don't have to prove if God is real, just if Jesus is Real, because Jesus was a man. And he left evidence.
Shroud of Turin anyone? The Bible? Jesus taught the apostles to be Good people, so they wouldn't lie, so most of the things in the Bible are true.
Except maybe Revelations because i think they did that so more people would believe in the bible or something idk.
Maybe God isn't real, hold up, God is Jesus, and Jesus is God.
So we don't have to prove if God is real, just if Jesus is Real, because Jesus was a man. And he left evidence.
Yes, we have proof of Jesus, as a man. Not as a god, but as a man.
Shroud of Turin anyone? The Bible? Jesus taught the apostles to be Good people, so they wouldn't lie, so most of the things in the Bible are true.
I'm going to say not... I can attest to say that most of the Bible is based on morals and stories to heighten one's character and to teach children lessons to live up to though
Not as a god, but as a man.
And there are multiple versions of ethnicity of him. So who is he really? Is he a man, or something else...?
I can attest to say that most of the Bible is based on morals and stories to heighten one's character and to teach children lessons to live up to though
A lot like the Greek myths. Does Jesus go around eating his children?! I think not!
Some fun facts about the bible.
1. it is the greatest propaganda machines in the world.
2. around 340AD (give or take)the Roman elite got together and had a big debate on whether the new testament was authentic. They decided to throw out any book that did not portray Jesus as the son of god. They threw out over 300 books.
3. It contradicts itself so badly it isn't funny.
Shroud of Turin anyone?
Likely to be a fake. Even if not how are you sure it is the one put on Jesus? Even if it is how is this proof of Jesus as a god and not just a man?
The Bible?
How is this proof? Sorry but God's real because the Bible says he's real because God's real isn't going to cut it as evidence.
Jesus taught the apostles to be Good people, so they wouldn't lie, so most of the things in the Bible are true.
Yeah never seen a good person lie before....
Even if they were good people doesn't mean they wouldn't lie to perpetuate something. Really it's not just them we have to consider as wolf1991 stated many people had a hand in the Bible, some of which flat out stated they were lying in order to convert people. Not only that but it's likely the four Gospels weren't written by the apostles making this argument moot.
Using the Bible as evidence of the existance of God is a fallacious arguement at best. First of all, the Bible wasn't even finished as a book until over 300 years AFTER Jesus was purported to have been alive. Secondly, many different men had a hand in writing the books included, as well as determining which books would NOT be included in the final process.
This type of argument is like saying Tolkien proved that Hobbits exist because he wrote Lord of the Rings. Come on now people, we were given intellect and reason to keep us from falling into these situations, not to create them. God may exist, he may not. We don't know. We do know that can prove many things happened based on the information that science has provided us. This may be proof that God doesn't exist, or it may just be an explanation of how God made everything.
Again, we don't know for sure and these fallacious arguements are, if anything, taking society FURTHER from finding God, if he is out there, than closer to finding him.
My apologies for the double post, but regarding the Shroud of Turin:
The Shroud in and of itself proves nothing. The practices at the time made shrouds very common, and the image on the shroud is nothing more than an image of a man. Could be any man who was crucified and buried at that time and in that area. The process of the body deteriorating post mortem releases many chemicals and toxins that we know now would create permanent stains on the types of fabrics used in shrouds, so there is no evidence that proves anything in relation to Jesus even being buried with that particular shroud, let alone the idea that he was the son of God.
The Shroud of Turin was official considered a fake. It was created in the middle ages during the time when religious relics were almost priceless. Naturally, someone with a smart economic decided to make some extra cash...
Anyway, NGC had a great documentary on it. It turns out that the dried blood is actually paint.
It turns out that the dried blood is actually paint
How do you know jesus didn't bleed paint? huh huh??? ^.^
How do you know jesus didn't bleed paint? huh huh??? ^.^
Because we all know he had wine for blood. :P
Because we all know he had wine for blood.
lol, i'll trade my blood for wine. :P
The Shroud of Turin was official considered a fake. It was created in the middle ages during the time when religious relics were almost priceless. Naturally, someone with a smart economic decided to make some extra cash...
Anyway, NGC had a great documentary on it. It turns out that the dried blood is actually paint.
Care to link to that? As far as I know its still on display and hasn't been disproven, then again I haven't checked up on the thing in years.
Well, let me take back "official." Only because it will never be official the way Christians hold it as a relic. "It will always hold the message...etc...etc."
Anyway, here is why I firmly believe it is a forgery:
Replica
Also: After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded that the shroud material dated to 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence *
The shroud has no appearance in history before the 14th century. It just magically turns up when the holy relic market was hot.
Thread is locked!