African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WTF are you talking about? You hate religion per se, or something like that?

Just Abrahamic religions? Anything man-made?

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

[Phenomanul]

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

[boutons_deux]

Taking Jesus as God/divine and the Bible as scientific and historical FACTS!

[Winehole23]

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

Constantine made christianity into his own image. the first few chapters of the NT.

Joseph was a refugee from Herod. Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

You assume a lot about me. You don't know very much.

Whatever you extrapolate from that is your very own business, hilariously off base, and has nothing to do with me.

[Winehole23]

I dislike you not because you criticize believers, but because you're a pompous asshole.

[Phenomanul]

Taking Jesus as God/divine and the Bible as scientific and historical FACTS!

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those do ents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

[boutons_deux]

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those do ents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

with the exception of Josephus and one other, ALL of them are Christ propagandists/marketing men.

[Phenomanul]

Really? You need to catch up on your bot-like rebuttals.

Jesus and reference to Christians are found in:

The writings of Greek historian Lucian of Samosata (second century)...

The Acts of Pontius Pilate
or other Roman accounts from the first and second centuries
Gaius Suetonius
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger

How about references by Roman Emperors themselves:
Nero
Claudius
Hadrian
Trajan

Then there are other writings that reference Jesus/Christ and his followers:

Thallus the Samaritan wrote accounts that reference Jesus' crucifixion.
Phlegon was a secular historian who recorded four separate quotes in reference to Jesus. ONE is of particular importance because it also references the biblical account of Jesus crucifixion as having caused widespread supernatural phenomena [quote by Julius Africanus in particular]

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? . . . And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time." - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

"At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that do entation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Mara bar-Serapion, was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus and his followers in a letter dated to A.D. 73
and then you have the Graece Magicae Papyri which references the use of Jesus' name to heal people (and includes references of Judaic rabbinical rebuke of using Jesus' name in said practice).

Aside from Josephus the Talmud also mentions Jesus' historicity.

[DMC]

No one here supports that crap.

That said, I think that many of you all largely believe that things such as witchcraft are simply myths from the past - i.e. non-existent, consigned to fairytaledom...

If you've never experienced or seen demonic manifestations first hand you probably would have every right to be skeptical.

When I was 22, I was visiting a church in southern Mexico (in the state of Chiapas) and they brought in a 12 year old boy, who clearly was not 'right'. There were several pastors there and they took him to a separate room and started praying (and asked the rest of us to pray in intercession from the sanctuary)... It was a humid August day, with temperatures exceeding 90°F as early as 8:00 AM every morning - and yet as soon as we begun praying the temperature in the building dropped to the point where you could see ice crystals forming in our exhalations (and no, the building was not equipped with an A/C system and the windows and door themselves were wide open). We were all visibly shaken but this manifestation was clearly "unnatural". After about an hour everyone came out of that room and the boy looked completely restored. There were even scratches on his arms and his face that had visibly disappeared and the color of his skin had warmed up. His parents were VERY grateful with us and wouldn't stop hugging their child. By that time, the towns' folk had gathered around the church in complete and total awe of what had just transpired. We were later told that the little boy had been afflicted for several months before the parents decided to come to the evangelical church for our help. This stuff is very real. You just don't see it in the U.S. as much. And this is not an isolated incident... I've seen similar manifestations on at least 3 other occasions. (Tragically that church was burned down by an indigenous tribe last year and several close brothers in the faith were murdered in the incident).

The point is... YOU all are skeptical of what you don't understand. What you all don't want to believe out of convenience to your positions/world-perspective. You all constantly forage the forum for continued justification of your general disbelief finding all sorts of articles and discussion points written from the same skeptical perspective to keep fostering and bolstering said position. It's fine... you all are en led to do that. To believe whatever you want.

To be clear... the Nigerian church is clearly in the wrong here...

But the question I have is why bring this up with such accusational light against Christianity in general? ("Why aren't any other people - Christians specifically - condemning this???"). The answer is simple. They don't know about it. Because if they did, they would most certainly intercede - despite the religious climate there. It's not easy to venture into Nigeria these days... especially not as a Christian.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

And I ask that simply to present the context that explains why corrective action on part of the church is not something that can happen immediately (given the instability and religious volatility of the country).

My 2¢

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No one here supports that crap.

That said, I think that many of you all largely believe that things such as witchcraft are simply myths from the past - i.e. non-existent, consigned to fairytaledom...

If you've never experienced or seen demonic manifestations first hand you probably would have every right to be skeptical.

When I was 22, I was visiting a church in southern Mexico (in the state of Chiapas) and they brought in a 12 year old boy, who clearly was not 'right'. There were several pastors there and they took him to a separate room and started praying (and asked the rest of us to pray in intercession from the sanctuary)... It was a humid August day, with temperatures exceeding 90°F as early as 8:00 AM every morning - and yet as soon as we begun praying the temperature in the building dropped to the point where you could see ice crystals forming in our exhalations (and no, the building was not equipped with an A/C system and the windows and door themselves were wide open). We were all visibly shaken but this manifestation was clearly "unnatural". After about an hour everyone came out of that room and the boy looked completely restored. There were even scratches on his arms and his face that had visibly disappeared and the color of his skin had warmed up. His parents were VERY grateful with us and wouldn't stop hugging their child. By that time, the towns' folk had gathered around the church in complete and total awe of what had just transpired. We were later told that the little boy had been afflicted for several months before the parents decided to come to the evangelical church for our help. This stuff is very real. You just don't see it in the U.S. as much. And this is not an isolated incident... I've seen similar manifestations on at least 3 other occasions. (Tragically that church was burned down by an indigenous tribe last year and several close brothers in the faith were murdered in the incident).

The point is... YOU all are skeptical of what you don't understand. What you all don't want to believe out of convenience to your positions/world-perspective. You all constantly forage the forum for continued justification of your general disbelief finding all sorts of articles and discussion points written from the same skeptical perspective to keep fostering and bolstering said position. It's fine... you all are en led to do that. To believe whatever you want.

To be clear... the Nigerian church is clearly in the wrong here...

But the question I have is why bring this up with such accusational light against Christianity in general? ("Why aren't any other people - Christians specifically - condemning this???"). The answer is simple. They don't know about it. Because if they did, they would most certainly intercede - despite the religious climate there. It's not easy to venture into Nigeria these days... especially not as a Christian.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

And I ask that simply to present the context that explains why corrective action on part of the church is not something that can happen immediately (given the instability and religious volatility of the country).

My 2¢

oh my heavenly jesus

[Phenomanul]

The fact that you two jerks would laugh at the murder of my friends and then at the subsequent reference to the murder of 1,000s of Christians in Nigeria is emblematic of the Political Forum these days. Congratulations.

[baseline bum]

[mingus]

The fact that you two jerks would laugh at the murder of my friends and then at the subsequent reference to the murder of 1,000s of Christians in Nigeria is emblematic of the Political Forum these days. Congratulations.

I've had things happen to me that were "odd" in the sense that there seems to be at least a slight possibility they occurred due to the supernatural. I don't know necessarily if they were or not due to the fact they they weren't and for all intents and purposes can't be tested using the scientific method. It is what it is. What you want to make of it is up to you, what other people want to make of it is up to them.

I take it with a grain of salt tho. It's been my personal experience that when push comes to shove both atheists and religious people have a pretty equal tendency to abandon what they SAY they believe.

Then they go on Internet forums and try and act like that never happened.

[RandomGuy]

People will use religion for their evil purposes. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if it's the KKK, ISIS, or other groups. It is evil people twisting a reference.

I agree.

[RandomGuy]

Witch burnings, raping babies to cure AIDS, sacrificing albinos, and muti murders in Africa have more to do with the ed up tribal religions black Africans follow than it does with Christianity. Many are religions that go back over 1000 years before any Christian missionaries showed up to spread the word of Jesus. Nelson Mandelas government officially recognizes witchcraft today.

You need to read some European history. Witch burnings have not been restricted to places with " ed up tribal religions".

[RandomGuy]

Why do you think I'm bringing it up? I think the Bible having Leviticus Deuteronomy and the other animal sacrifice rituals for absolution as well as Paul's pandering to the Roman's and directives to his underlings is the greatest irony in western culture.

All Hadith I've read are modeled after Matthew. Islamists are very chameleon. Much like Matthew a roman who went to Jesus' suppers and followed him around writing down what he said, people followed Muhammad around and wrote what he said in response to people asking him questions. The parables from this make up much of Matthew and are one of the few things in the Bible that I actually believe at all from that book. The contrived genealogy and sketch of his early life is obviously made to satisfy the person making a state religion. Constantine might have been converting but not necessarily so his fellow elites throughout the Mediterranean. A outcast wastrel taken in and trained by a shaman who ritually bathed wouldn't sell. King of Kings? Ok Yeah!

Much like Constantine at the head of his state, the Ayyubid sultanate was not able to maintain social control even with their state religion. They too needed more. The Ottoman's did it. The Roman's did it. Need some warriors? Cook it up. Need to justify your revenge killing? Cook it up. Need to justify slavery? Need to justify subjugation of women? Cook it up.

Muhammad explicitly says that you are not to speak in his name outside of the Quran in the Quran. He saw what people were doing that were following him around and told them not to do it. Jesus was crucified before he even had a chance to do likewise.

There may not have actually been anyone following Jesus around writing about him. Don't forget the possibility that the majority of what is ascribed to him may be almost entirely made up, long after his death. There is some evidence to support this thesis.

[RandomGuy]

There are many secular and historical writings that attest Jesus' existence and that refer to his miracles. Go ahead and brush those do ents off the record in one sweeping generalization too.

I am always willing to read something new. Examples? Link?

[RandomGuy]

Really? You need to catch up on your bot-like rebuttals.

Jesus and reference to Christians are found in:

The writings of Greek historian Lucian of Samosata (second century)...

The Acts of Pontius Pilate
or other Roman accounts from the first and second centuries
Gaius Suetonius
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger

How about references by Roman Emperors themselves:
Nero
Claudius
Hadrian
Trajan

Then there are other writings that reference Jesus/Christ and his followers:

Thallus the Samaritan wrote accounts that reference Jesus' crucifixion.
Phlegon was a secular historian who recorded four separate quotes in reference to Jesus. ONE is of particular importance because it also references the biblical account of Jesus crucifixion as having caused widespread supernatural phenomena [quote by Julius Africanus in particular]

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? . . . And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time." - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

"At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that do entation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Mara bar-Serapion, was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus and his followers in a letter dated to A.D. 73
and then you have the Graece Magicae Papyri which references the use of Jesus' name to heal people (and includes references of Judaic rabbinical rebuke of using Jesus' name in said practice).

Aside from Josephus the Talmud also mentions Jesus' historicity.

I will delve into the details, but first, let's get to a basic principle about how to tell the truth of something, and sufficiency of evidence.

I can watch a visual/auditory record of Neal Patrick Harris, a real human, driving around in New York, a real city. Neal Patrick Harris talks to magic blue creatures in this record, and these magic blue creatures perform miracles.

Does that mean Smurfs are real and do the things this record shows? Why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

Easy to fulfill prophesies if you write it that way after the fact. Don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

[Phenomanul]

Easy to fulfill prophesies if you write it that way after the fact. Don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

Ummmm... the bulk of those prophecies were written thousands of years before Christ's birth. The latest of those 400 years before his birth. HOW THE can Jesus' fulfillment of the scriptures be written in after-the-fact?!? Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies from Genesis to Malachi concerning His role and nature... None of the writers of the Gospels could have known about all of them simply because it's not like any one person at the time carried around the "latest edition" of all the scrolls that comprise the Hebrew canon. Other than the Jerusalem temple (which was destroyed in A.D. 70), there was no central depository for the COMPLETE writings of the Hebrew scrolls - much less would they be made available to just anyone for "referencing and cross-checking of facts". Especially not Jesus' followers or the writers of the Gospels.

The fact remains that even the Jewish nation rejected their long awaited Messiah because they were awaiting a military leader and not a spiritual one. They failed to recognize all of the prophecies concerning Jesus because largely the general population was unaware of them. To this day the passages from Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22 are NEVER read aloud at synagogues BECAUSE they clearly reference Jesus Christ. The few Jews that have had a chance to read them can't even believe the writings are legitimately contained in their own canon or believe that somehow Christians must have added them in after the fact (as you smugly suggested). They would want to believe that because the context and references to Jesus' crucifixion are so explicit and detailed that mere coincidence alone can't explain them away. Here's the catch... The Book of Isaiah was written 800 years before Christ!!!

In fact, the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered during the original 1947 find, is actually a mostly complete copy of the The Book of Isaiah - it dates to 125-140 BCE cementing/validating the authenticity of the references to Jesus in these scriptures and just as important, that these copies pre-date Jesus' entirely by over a century. But go ahead and gloss over that fact. Fuzzy's narrative/rant was a whole bunch of "they say this --> but logically this makes more sense" - his arguments are entirely speculative and lack the fundamental proof to gain any ground as a true counter-narrative. The established narrative has been attacked for centuries, and yet secular accounts - existing outside of the context of scripture" - also support the historicity of Jesus and many of the events surrounding his ministry/life that are narrated in the Gospels. You don't think people much smarter than Fuzzy have already tried to debunk the Gospel accounts, or have tried to deny Jesus' existence altogether...? They will continue to stand the test of time - and only man's pride refuses to accept what is historically evident...

Bringing up fictional accounts as a counter argument (Neil Patrick Harris' encounter with the Smurfs - on two occasions no less), doesn't make sense in light of THE CONTENT of the gospels. Now THAT, RG is a deluded argument. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that the reader cannot discern the differences between fiction and prose. The Gospels are not written as fiction. It's clearly a revelation about GOD's nature and His desire for mankind.

John 3:16-22 New International Version (NIV)

16 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. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Then there's this tidbit. YOU ALL always gripe about the use of scripture to support anything believers say, but then have the audacity to try and tell adherents how to interpret their own writings - because your assumption is that they must be interpreting incorrectly. YOU ALL can't have it both ways. It's rather laughable actually.

Finally, I noticed how in all of your replies you chose to ignore the only question I actually posited for you.

I wonder if RG has seen the videos of 1,000s of Christians (women, children, men, elderly) being brutally beaten and burned alive in Nigeria? Where is his outrage on that front?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on why you chose not to address it. But it's very clear to me that this is simply another run-o-the-mill "let's all bash Christianity" thread - let's "point out how it's adherents are less than perfect" (mind you the faith has never claimed as much). Folks start about 3-5 of these threads per week (mainly boutons_deux) to again bolster their own disbelief. That said, I have no doubt in my mind that no one else responded to my question out of convenience to their continued and deliberate respite towards Christianity, its tenets, its believers and most importantly towards Jesus Himself. Carry on. You all are en led to do as you wish.

Note: I have no idea what that video shows (cause I cannot access it from work).

[RandomGuy]

I will delve into the details, but first, let's get to a basic principle about how to tell the truth of something, and sufficiency of evidence.

I can watch a visual/auditory record of Neal Patrick Harris, a real human, driving around in New York, a real city. Neal Patrick Harris talks to magic blue creatures in this record, and these magic blue creatures perform miracles.

Does that mean Smurfs are real and do the things this record shows? Why or why not?

[as noted, going to pass on the details for now, merely trying to get at something a bit more basic. will circle around later-RG]

Bringing up fictional accounts as a counter argument (Neil Patrick Harris' encounter with the Smurfs - on two occasions no less), doesn't make sense in light of THE CONTENT of the gospels. Now THAT, RG is a deluded argument. It's entirely disingenuous to suggest that the reader cannot discern the differences between fiction and prose. The Gospels are not written as fiction. It's clearly a revelation about GOD's nature and His desire for mankind.

You missed the point of the question. It was meant as a serious exercise in critical thinking, more than a specific comparison, although the comparison is more valid than you would prefer. To short circuit a lot of back and forth, I will go ahead and answer for you. Feel free to parse in your own words if you fault my logic/reasoning.

No, it does not mean Smurfs are real. It is possible for a story to be told about a real person, and real places, but still have one or more aspects of the story be completely made up, such as magical blue creatures and their adventures fighting an evil wizard.

Problem with your claim "The Gospels are not written as fiction" is that they stand on the same level as every other group of holy writings.

I reject your assertion "It's disingenuous..." People have a hard time distinguishing between fiction and prose all the time. The internet is full of people thinking Onion articles are real. The ancient world was full of people thinking all sorts of fantastic things were real, and things are not much changed today.

This leaves us with a lot of other books that were not written as fiction, the Quran, Great Hymn to the Aten, The Akilathirattu Ammanai, Bon Kangyur and Tengyur, etc, etc., and the almost impossible task of figuring out which ones are "real" or not.

Personally, I find it rather obvious that a being capable of creating a universe as vast as ours seems to be could find a better way to interact with its creations than a book or writings.

If human beings were to make up a religion, one would expect that they would use a book.

[RandomGuy]

Note: I have no idea what that video shows (cause I cannot access it from work).

The video contains quite a few things that address your points. Watch it or not. It is a bit short on the kinds of specifics that I prefer, but does a fair job of outlining some rather salient points on the topic of historical verisimilitude, and the early Christian church.

[RandomGuy]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

[Phenomanul]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

Except that the accounts I referenced are historical accounts by secular historians, wholly independent from scripture... they reference unexplained phenomena that was evident to all who were there to witness it... The Acts of Pontius Pilate for example, affirms that Jesus was performing miracles that defied all explanation (clearly prose not fiction)... the excerpt from Phlegon's writings talk about the sun being blacked out throughout the land "for all to see", and was explicit about the time of day (which coincides with the Gospel narrative)... He later in said book suggests that it couldn't be explained away with a solar eclipse because the moon was not in the proper position in the sky to produce an eclipse (which he also suggests is besides the point because solar eclipses don't last hours nor do they produce earthquakes) (again clearly prose not fiction)...

I'm just pointing out that the references to Jesus extraordinary life are out there - and not all of them are scriptural as boutons was trying to suggest.

[Phenomanul]

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Kind of clear that this is not the case. Jesus could be a real person, and could have lived in Jerusalem, but just because we can have a story that involves Jesus and Jerusalem, doesn't "prove" that the stories about Jesus are real. Those stories have a truth that is independent of whether or not Jesus was real, just like any mythology based on real people.

As an aside, it's somewhat comical that people have argued for centuries the merits of the proof of Jesus' existence/life/ministry. The proof consisting of very real artifacts and manuscripts, 1st hand accounts - tangible, observable, measurable evidence. Given the context that Jesus lived roughly 2,000 years ago you all make it seem like the authenticity of any such proof is entirely up for debate because of the time factor.

YET those very same detractors then turn around and tell you with ALL CERTAINTY that man knows exactly what happened millions and billions of years ago on our planet/cosmos.

The inconsistency in standards is rather convenient.